INTRODUCTION

More than 10 years ago Peter Drucker provided a strong note of warning for colleges and universities in the west: change is coming. “Thirty years from now the big university campuses will be relics. Universities won’t survive. It’s as large a change as when we first got the printed book”(Kenzner & Johnson, 1997, p. 1). Driving the change is technology. “Already we are beginning to deliver more lectures and classes off campus via satellite or two-way video at a fraction of the cost. The college won’t survive as a residential institution. Today’s buildings are hopelessly unsuited and totally unneeded” (p. 1).

The number of colleges and universities starting to offer classes (and even complete degree programs) online increases annually (Powers, 2007, p. 65). Still, many institutions discover various obstacles that slow down or even prohibit progress in this transition.

The purpose of this review is to survey the current research findings related to the topic of blended or hybrid learning as a transitional pedagogy between face-to-face instruction and online instruction. The focus of this paper will be within the higher education sector. Moreover, this paper will tend to emphasize the institutional and faculty perspective. There are many questions that need to be addressed from a learner’s perspective, but that is out of the scope of this paper. This review will answer the following questions:

1. What is blended learning?

2. How is blended learning currently used within higher education?

3. What are the benefits and obstacles blended learning presents?

4. How can institutions seeking to move towards distance education utilize blended learning as a transitional pedagogy?

 

METHODOLOGY

Literature published since 2000 was surveyed for this review. Online databases were accessed through the University of Northern Iowa’s Rod Library. Source databases include Academic OneFile, College Source Online, Education Full Text, ERIC (EBSCO), ERIC (USDE), PsycArticles, and PsycInfo. In addition, two meta-search engines, Dogpile.com (which pulls results from a variety of search engines including Google, Yahoo!, Live Search, Ask.com, About.com, and several others) and Google Scholar (which indexes scholarly literature from a wide variety of sources), were used.

The search terms employed in finding resources for this paper included hybrid learning, blended learning, distance education, distance learning, higher education, transition or transitional pedagogy, and various combinations of the above. Many of the sources identified through this research were in the form of monographs or journal articles. The sources were selected based on their relevance to the topic, the credibility of the publication or author, and the source’s currency.

 

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

What is Blended Learning?

With the rapid increase and acceptance of Internet-based communications (e.g. e-mail, Web, instant messaging, online chat, and two-way voice and video communication), educators are finding new and exciting methods of utilizing technology for learning. Prior to taking courses completely online, many are finding advantages in a blended learning environment (Singh, 2003).

By definition, a blended learning environment is created when portions of a class are conducted face-to-face while other parts are conducted via the use of technology (Graham, 2006 as cited in Molenda & Boling, 2008). Within higher education, “a blended course typically consists of one face-to-face class meeting per week, with students using the Internet and Web to complete group projects and other class assignments” (Molenda & Boling, 2008, p. 99). Like all technology-based components, blended learning continues to evolve.

 

How is Blended Learning Currently Used within Higher Education?

Many colleges and universities find themselves confronted with the dilemma of what to do with distance education. The hurdles are many and costly. Paul Lack (2007), executive vice president for academic affairs and dean at Villa Julie College in suburban Baltimore, MD describes the dilemma: “we were aware of the winds that might blow us in that direction [towards distance learning], but high start-up costs, the vast number of possibilities, and the competitive advantage of state-supported programs (with their low tuition rates) led us to resist the tide” (p. 68).

Research also shows that in addition to institutional barriers, there are perceived barriers at the faculty level. In a report for the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), Schrum and Ohler (2005) noted that demands on faculty time and the need for a shared vision about distance education topped the list of perceived barriers in a survey of UAS faculty members. Frey & Donehue (2003) add to this list the lack of technical skills and training for faculty members and problems/issues with student access as barriers to utilization.

Still, in spite of the barriers, the advantages distance learning offers outweigh the initial obstacles. Lack (2007) observes that, “even a cursory SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat) analysis suggests that a campus that is weak in DL options may well miss many opportunitites and be vulnerable to threats that can never be fully anticipated” (p. 69).

Recognizing the potential, many brick and mortar institutions are seeking ways to offer courses via distance learning, but by necessity must take small steps towards the ultimate destination. This is where blended learning enters. Many universities and colleges today can be considered “dual-mode” institutions in that they offer courses on campus and online and a blend of both (Power, 2007). Moreover, research demonstrates that faculty uses of technology range from low level to high level technologies (The Computing Project, 2000). Herring & Smaldino (2005) define low-level and high-level technologies as the difference between levels of immediate interactivity. Low-level technologies include audio and video recordings, broadcast and cable television while high-level technologies include e-learning networks, e-mail, chat, or bulletin boards. 

 

What are the Benefits Blended Learning Presents?

Educational institutions are embedded in a technologically advanced culture, and students entering the 21^st century classroom have higher expectations for engaged learning than previous generations of students (Desai, Hart, & Richards, 2008). Institutions that offer technologically enhanced instruction will be better prepared to meet the needs of today’s students. Burgess (2008) notes that “Blended learning research has shown that its use on specific courses generates favorable responses from students” (p. 132). At the center of the student satisfaction issue is the importance of flexibility. Blended learning provides increased access to course instructors, fellow students, as well as resources and course documents. Combined, these attributes contribute to a student’s satisfaction as well as the overall effectiveness of the learning environment (Burgess, 2008).

Faculty see the benefit of utilizing technology in their instruction as a way to enhance student learning (Maguire, 2005). Oblinger and Hawkins (2006) observe that “Allowing students to listen to a podcast of a lecture while reviewing their class notes and watching an animation on the screen permits the integration of multiple inputs (p. 15).” Other benefits cited by Oblinger and Hawkins (2006) include collaboration student-to-student as well as student-to-instructor, the utilization of video conferencing technology to bring expert guests to a classroom, and the ability to work in partnership with teams of international students from various parts of the globe working on related problems. Signh (2003) notes that “research from institutions such as Standford University and the University of Tennessee have given us valuable insights into some of the mechanisms by which blended learning is better than both traditional methods and individual forms of e-learning technology alone” (p. 53). All of these opportunities help to create a richer, more productive learning environment.

While educators are not traditionally prone to examine market share or return-on-investment, the success of for-profit distance learning institutions may lead more traditional institutions to reexamine their priorities (Mason, 2003). Moving towards a distance education model can present many hurdles (McLean, 2005; Mcguire, 2005; Howell, Williams & Lindsey, 2003), but using a blended approach may allow an institution to take steps towards a distance approach while maintaining their strong emphasis on traditional face-to-face instruction (Lack, 2007; Schrum & Ohler, 2005).

 

Using Blended Learning to Move Towards Online Learning

Brick and mortar institutions seeking to move from traditional face-to-face instruction towards offering fully online courses and degree programs can benefit from implementing a blended approach. Schrum and Ohler (2005) cite three transitional steps institutions can take towards the successful implementation of online learning: 1) create an institutional vision that articulates and supports the role of distance education; 2) develop a comprehensive plan to coordinate the administration of an institution-wide distance education effort; 3) provide technical, instructional design, and media production support for faculty seeking to move from traditional classrooms to a blended classroom, to a fully online classroom. Power (2007) notes many institutions are following the lead of for-profit education providers and utilizing course design teams to assist and support faculty members as they transition their courses to a distance learning environment.

Another important factor for institutions seeking to transition to an online model is the adoption of an institutional design model. Singh (2003) suggests an octagonal framework that includes institutional, pedagogical, technological, interface design, evaluation, management, resource support, and ethical dimensions. Heubeck (2008) notes that most faculty members are subject matter experts and not distance education experts. Incoporating a design team approach allows faculty to serve as subject matter experts without becoming encumbered with the multitude of skills necessary to successfully engage students at a distance. Each of these factors must be considered in the overall implementation of a successful distance learning environment.

Finally, faculty incentives cannot be overlooked. While Wolcott (2003) and Maguire (2005) both cite intrinsic motivators as more important than institutional motivators, they also note that institutional motivators cannot be overlooked. Maguire (2005) states that “When faculty outline the support issues that would motivate them to teach online, the support issue most noted is that of administrative recognition and encouragement for online efforts” (p. 1).

 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The selection of the topic for this literature review was motivated in part by the author’s involvmenent with distance education in the state of Iowa in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As part of the team within state government that helped shepherd the intital funding through the state legislature for the construction of a state-wide fiber optic educational telecommunications network, there was one player that seemed to be missing at the table: representatives from the state’s three regent universities. Now, almost 20 years later, Iowa still appears to be lagging behind in the acceptance and utilization of distance learning. Research in this review and in a companion review completed at the University of Northern Iowa observe several trends as higher education grapples with the problem/opportunity distance learning provides: 1) faculty resistance to distance education initiatives; 2) lack of clarity of vision and purpose as institutions see the growing competition coming from for-profit universities and desire to offer distance education opportunities of their own; 3) a confusion of emphasis and focus as faculty weigh the time commitments and extra workload required to offer effective classes at a distance with the institutional priority placed on research that ultimately leads to career advancement, recognition, and tenure.

Large institutions like a regional university do not change their modus operandi quickly. Long-term change must happen incrementally. As outlined by research discovered in this review, blended learning offerings faculty and institutions a method of moving towards offering both courses and degree programs through a fully online learning environment. Moreover, recognizing that most faculty members are subject matter experts and not distance education experts (Heubeck, 2008), it is important to provide ample support to assist faculty in the transition to online learning. At the center of this support is strong administrative support and a comprehensive plan to assist faculty with instructional design, media production, and technical support. As Power (2007) notes, adopting a design team approach will provide the necessary support faculty need to make this transition. Singh (2003) also notes the importance of an institutional design model that ensures that all factors are considered when designing for blended learning.

The future for distance education is bright, but the challenges to traditional institutions are many. As Mason (2003) notes,

One of the greatest threats to the traditional university is the rise of other educational providers: corporate universities, private for-profit universities, virtual universities, and a wide range of education brokers. Most of these new providers are businesses and the focus of a business is profit, while the focus of a university is knowledge. (p. 745) 

More research is still needed to determine the best use of decreasing funds to help traditional brick and mortar institutions successfully transition to providing competitive online opportunities. Singh (2003) cites Standford University and the University of Tennessee as examples, but other institutions, like the University of Illinois’ Global Campus are still far from reaching a level of sustainable success. In spite of $1.5 million in initial investment and a budget of $9.4 million in fiscal year 2008-09, the Global Campus had 366 students enrolled for the 2008-09 school year(Turner, 2009). Compare this, for example, with Walden University, a for-profit university, which currently enrolls 35,000 students with more than 1,500 enrolled in various PhD. Programs (M. F. Shepard, personal communication, April 5, 2009).

As the educational landscape continues to change, and competition from for-profit institutions continues to grow, universities will need to make informed decisions from a strategic level. Howell, Williams and Lindsey (2003) note 32 trends affecting distance education that fall under broad subcategories including student enrollment trends, faculty trends, academic trends, technology trends, economic trends, and distance learning trends. Quoting Bates (2000), Howell, Williams and Lindsey (2003) note that “perhaps the biggest challenge [in distance education] is the lack of vison and the failure to use technology strategically” (p. 1).

  

REFERENCES

Barber, W., & Wilkinson, M. (2005). The change in academic skill base required for the transition from face-to-face teaching to blended delivery.Retrieved March 17, 2009, from The Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia: http://www.unisa.edu.au/odlaaconference/PPDF2s/69%20odlaa%20-%20Barber%20%20Wilkinson%20abstract.pdf

Barnes, B. F., Preziosi, R. C., & Gooden, D. J. (2004). An examination of the learning styles of online MBA students and their preferred course delivery methods. New Horizons in Adult Education , 18 (2), 19-30.

Burgess, J. (2007). Is a blended learning approach suitable for mature, part-time finance students? The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(2), 131-138.

Desai, M. S., Hart, J., & Richards, T. C. (2008). E-learning: Paradigm shift in education. Education, 129(2), 327-34.

Frey, B. A., & Donehue, R. (2003). Making the transition from traditional to cyberspace classrooms. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 12, 69-84.

Herring, M. C., & Smaldino, S. S. (2005). Planning for distance education: A handbook. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Heubeck, E. (2008, October 16). Higher ed professionals’ perspectives on online education. Diverse, 7(41), pp. 30-31.

Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (2003). Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from Web site:http://www.wetga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html

Kenzner, R., & Johnson, S. S. (1997, March 10). Seeing things as they really are. Forbes, 159(5), 126-127. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from Forbes Web site: http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=AONE&docId=A19148548&source=gale&srcprod=AONE&userGroupName=uni_rodit&version=1.0

Lack, P. D. (2007, October). Distance learning that works. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from University Business Web site: http://www.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=918

Maguire, L. L. (2005, March 15). Literature review – Faculty participation in online distance education: Barriers and motivators. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/maguire81.htm

Mason, R. (2003). Global education: Out of the ivory tower. In M. G. Moore, & W. G. Anderson, Handbook of distance education (pp. 743-752). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates.

McLean, J. (2005, December 21). Addressing faculty concerns about distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.Retrieved March 20, 2009, from Web site: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/mclean84.html

Molenda, M., & Boling, E. (2008). Creating. In A. Januszewski, & M. Molenda, Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 81-140). New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Oblinger, D. G., & Hawkins, B. L. (2006, November/December). The myth about no significant difference. Educause Review, 41(6), pp. 14-15.

Power, M. (2007). From distance education to e-learning: A multiple case study on instructional design problems. E-Learning, 4(1), 64-78.

Schrum, L., & Ohler, J. (2005). Distance education at UAS: A case study. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 60-83.

Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51-54.

The Computing Project. (2000, October). Struggling with IT staffing. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from http://www.campuscomputing.net/summaries/2000/index.html

Turner, D. (2009, April 3). The global campus meets a world of competition. The Chronical of Higher Education, 55(30), A10.

Wolcott, L. L. (2003). Dynamics of faculty participation in distance education: Motivations, incentives, and rewards. In M. Moore, & W. Anderson,Handbook of distance education (pp. 549-565). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates.