New blends in learning

I started a discussion on Twitter today about blended learning, after reading an exchange between @simfin and @whitec. Unfortunately, the limit of 140 characters, on this occasion at least, badly let me down. Now look, just like any other academic, I don't mind a bit of a verbal punch-up, in fact I relish it. If you want an argument, I'll give you one, and just when you think it's all over, I'll come back for some more. But what I don't enjoy under any circumstances being misunderstood. Today's discussion about blended learning on Twitter was for me at least, somewhat unsatisfactory. I was away for some of the time, engaged in editorial work, and as I wasn't able to make my point clearly, I didn't persist. But, knowing me like you do, you know it's not over. So I'm using this blog to elaborate on my ideas in the hope that a more informed discussion can ensue and that this time I will not be misunderstood. Here's what I originally tweeted:



By this statement I meant this: Blended learning (in the established, traditional sense) means a mix of learning activities that involved students learning both in the classroom, and at a distance from the classroom, usually mediated through technology. I am claiming that this type of blended learning - in concept at least - is now outmoded because the boundaries between local and remote have now been substantially blurred. The tyranny of distance has been fractured. My students now learn across a continuum that encompasses the classroom, home and all points in between, any time, any place. They use the same or similar technologies in the classroom as they do at home, as they do on the bus, as they do... you get the idea. Geography (location of study) matters less and less as technology becomes more familiar, transparent and affordable, and students are connected with their peers, tutors and content in continually new and dynamic ways. This is why blended learning, in the old traditional sense is now a fairly meaningless term.

The second part of my statement was more contentious to those who responded to my tweet. I said that the 'new blend is to blur formal and informal learning.' This provoked a storm of responses. Someone said that the idea of formal/informal learning wasn't 'new'. Let me clarify - by 'new' I meant it's a new challenge for teachers. It means they may have to consider replacing some of their practices and it means that schools may need to revise some of their rules. Let me explain again:
Young people now bring so much informal technology into the classroom (mobile phones, handheld games consoles, etc), which they use constantly outside the formal boundaries of formal learning. Without really thinking about it, they use these tools to create and share content, connect, communicate and collaborate for their informal learning. Presently many schools simply ask their students to 'turn off' the devices when they arrive in school, because there are concerns about innappropriate use (cheating, bullying, recording and posting images or videos, etc). One challenge for school leaders today is to balance the risks against the benefits and decide what role if any these informal tools have in a formal context. The major challenge for educators then is to decide whether they wish to harness the power, excitement and allure of these informal technologies with a formal context.

A point was made by Anne-Marie Cunningham that the formal and informal have always been naturally blended by students, and it's nothing new, and to a great extent this is true. However, there is something new we need to consider. With the advent of emerging digital technologies, there are now more opportunities than ever to exploit the potential blend between formal and informal learning. To simply say that it's not new, has always been there, and therefore we don't need to be concerned with it, is ignoring the incredible potential we now have within our grasp to enrich, enhance and extend student experiences.

Mike John implied that because there is only learning and teaching (of which of course I agree) we shouldn't be labelling it with other terminology, because in doing so, we are 'taking our eye off the ball.' I know what he's getting at - the learner should be central - but I counter this by pointing out that if you are discussing the pedagogical theories behind the multitude of different practices observed in the classrom every day (my stock-in-trade) you need different words to engage fully and effectively in the discourse. Differentiating these practices necessitates giving them terms that describe, define and delineate them from each other. Yes, in the final analysis there is only learning and teaching, but we are not taking our eye off the ball in this discussion, we are merely finding out how many ways there are of kicking the ball. Education would be poorer without variety.

Finally, I want to make the point that blended learning in the new sense will also see the boundaries between teacher and learner blurring. I believe the two are a part of a continuum, because we learn by teaching. Sure, the teacher will be paid to develop and facilitate learning processes, but they will accompany students rather than leading them, and students in turn will surely teach each other more. We know that one of the most powerful and persistently positive learning outcomes in all sectors of education arises when reciprocal teaching is employed - the metastudies of John Hattie have established this across multiple contexts. So my prediction is that learning and teaching as activities will blend too. So there you have it. Blended learning as a concept is outmoded, and the new challenge for educators is to bring the excitement and affordances of informal technologies into the formal context. Other boundaries will blur as teaching and learning begin to coalesce. I hope I have been clear, and I'm quite happy to debate this further. Am I right or am I wrong? You tell me.



New blends in learning by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Lifeline

I have discovered that successful technology mediated interaction between learners is more likely when students are unable to meet face to face and it's the only option they have left. It may sound obvious, but when students are geographically isolated, they tend to take every opportunity to communicate with each other to share experiences, collaborate in project work, discuss the issues raised by the course, trade short cuts and study tips, and generally engage in social dialogue. It's like a lifeline to them. Many of my distance students have told me that it's good to know that other students 'out there' are in the same situation as them, and that they can communicate across distance at the click of a mouse. But it's not all good news….

Rena Palloff and Keith Pratt (1999) studied the effects of collaborative working and the development of online communities in learning. Some of their groups learnt in hybrid (blended) mode - that is, the groups studied predominantly online but occasionally gathered together to meet in a more traditional campus based setting. Palloff and Pratt reported that some of their student groups hardly ever communicated in face to face mode, but rather stored up their comments and contributions for the web based discussion group instead. Palloff and Pratt expressed disquiet about this state of affairs, because although interaction in an electronic environment is both desirable and powerful, it can be a lesser experience than face to face contact if this is available.

Personally, I can't see the problem. If students want to interact with each other they will do so, using whatever means they are most comfortable with. The job of the online tutor is to ensure that students can interact, regardless of their location, and to make sure that the tools are provided for all the possibilities.

Reference

Palloff, R. M. and Pratt, K. (1999) Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Image source

Beyond Control?

A recent ALT Conference ran under the banner of 'Beyond Control', and I remember writing the editorial for the research proceedings along the lines that the net generation (whoever they are) has been operating largely outside the boundaries of instutional technology provision for some time. More and more students own their own laptops and mobile phones, and they do not take kindly to being told how they should use the Internet. Last week's e-learning conference in Plymouth had a similar title 'Crossing Boundaries' which also elicited a similar set of themed papers on student activities that are conducted largely outside of institutional boundaries. One of my recent publications dealing with this subject is a chapter that appears in the book 'Effective Blended Learning Practices' Edited by Elizabeth Stacey and Phillipa Gerbic. There is limited access to it on Google Books, but it's another of those overpriced IGI Global books I'm afraid. At £135.50 I don't expect many to buy it, but there are some valuable chapters contained therein and I would like to share one or two of those ideas with you here. In my chapter I critically review some of the recent uses of the Learning Management System (LMS) in universities and ask who the systems have been designed for. Is it the institution or the student? Here's an abstract:

The Learning Management System is not always popular with students, for a number of reasons. Students report that they experience difficulties with technical issues (Weller et al, 2005), lack of familiarity with the system (McGill & Hobbs, 2007), and discussion overload (Kear & Heap, 2007), and this is not an exhaustive list. Furthermore, the LMS is facing competition for student ‘online time’ from a more attractive and rapidly growing rival – social networking. Where the LMS invariably has the appearance of an institutional system – branded logo, controlled log-in and passwords, uninspiring topography and bland presentation – the more popular social networking tools ..... are more colourful and attractive, can be more or less tailored to personal preferences, and are beyond the control and surveillance of the university.


The point I wish to underline is the institution imposes the LMS on staff and students with little consultation with the true stakeholders. This leads me to believe that the LMS is primarily there for the benefit of the institution rather than for the student. It is there to impose control, but the battle for control is being lost, because...


...today’s generation of students expect and seek out highly interactive experiences, involving muti-tasking, self-selection of learning material and fast-moving engagement with their enviroment which centres upon play, user-generation of content and collaboration. We might conclude that the insitutional LMS is simply failing to keep pace which the new demands from the network generation, so students are migrating to social networking sites to supplement their on-line experiences.


The institutional LMS is failing because its design curtails creativity and constrains students (and tutors) to think in a particular way. There is no latitude for informal learning either, because this is not what an LMS does. So students are populating social networking and Web 2.0 tools in greater numbers every week, and all of their activities are beyond the reach of the institution. Universities can if they wish, ban access to Facebook, YouTube and other popular sites across their networks, but students will still find ways to continue to gossip, share images, tag and otherwise interact beyond the control of the institute. They will do it because they enjoy it, and because it also provides something that the institutional LMS can never do: Social networks provide a place where students can relax, have fun and chat with friends who are inside and outside of the university they are studying in. My conclusion?


It is highly likely that a compromise will be required if blended technology supported learning is to improve its track record. Future deployments of online learning environments are likely to have elements of both systems within the architecture of the LMS.


Image source