The 2nd World Conference on Blended Learning. April 27, 2017. Toronto, ON, Canada
When blended learning pedagogies go
beyond physical and prescriptive
boundaries
Dr. Liliana Cuesta Medina
Dr. Elena Bárcena Madera
UNED- Departamento de Filologías Extranjeras y sus Lingüísticas
Main discussion targets
•
•
•
•
•
Why blending?
BL: Its diversified nature
Types of blends
Our study
Lessons learned
Hands-on blends will take place throughout the session 
Mission One.
Where, what
and why do
you blend?
Our arguments for blending…
• BL development has naturally been assisted
by the emergence, increase of use and
availability of digital learning technologies
(Bonk & Graham, 2005). These facts can be
viewed both as opportunities and as
threats.
• Opportunities Fosterage of studentcentered pedagogies that can better
address students’ learning, personal and
academic needs, as well as nurture lifelong
learning in and outside the classroom.
Our arguments for blending…
• Threats If BL initiatives are not effectively
planned, designed and/or scaffolded to
meet the former objectives, and if failure in
adjusting and/or adapting strategies that
cater self-access self-paced and selfmanaged learning occurs.
• These threats pose barriers to satisfaction,
engagement and productivity, and can take
place at the course, program and/or
institutional level.
Our arguments for blending…
• We believe that if students are satisfied
with their academic offers they are more
likely to excel at their skill development
pathways, more able and motivated to
manage their learning, and more open to
create team-building skills that will allow
them build collaboration among their circles
and communities.
• We trust that (if effectively implemented),
BL can generate a smooth transfer to
workforce scenarios.
BL?: Is it really the best of both worlds?
(Graham, 2006)
• Mixing and matching of different learning
delivery modes (De George-Walker & Keeffe,
2010).
• Blend of online and face-to-face (F2F)
instruction (Reay, 2001; Rooney, 2003; Sands,
2002; Ward & LaBranche, 2003; Young, 2002).
• Blend of instructional methods (Driscoll, 2002;
House, 2002; Rossett, 2002).
• Blend of instructional modalities (or delivery
media) (Bersin & Associates, 2003; Orey, 2002;
Thomson, 2002).
BL?: Is it really the best of both worlds?
(Graham, 2006)
• BL promotes socialisation through the
technologically assisted learning possibilities
of the online environment (Dziuban, Hartman,
& Moskal, 2004; Wilson, 2010).
• BL, is an approach that helps us bridge the
challenge of the transformational changes
that technological developments bring to
higher education (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004).
• Graham (2006) conceives of BL as a system
that combines F2F instruction with computermediated instruction and fosters not only the
use of different information and
communication technologies but also
facilitates the emergence and development of
different kinds of interactions and encounters
among participants.
And many more…
BL?: Is it really the best of both worlds?
(Graham, 2006)
• In this session, BL is viewed as a pedagogical approach that
offers educational communities the opportunity to customise
their learning using synchronous and asynchronous delivery
modes to increase levels of interaction among the agents
involved (generally, students and faculty).
Types of blends
Course level
Activity level
Occurs when the
blend contains a
learning activity that
is composed of both
F2F (face-to-face)
and computermediated elements.
Key feature: The role of
the designer selecting
and sequencing
pedagogical and
technological
components (e.g., mixed
reality, computermediated communication
[CMC], mobile
technologies) to create
an authentic learning
experience.
There are two
commonly used
blended options.
a. Learning activities
that use computermediated and F2F
sections that overlap
in time.
b. Learning activities
that are separated in
different time blocks,
structured
chronologically but do
not necessarily
overlap.
Types of blends
Massie (2002) suggests other
blended possibility that allows
students to take a class at
different times during the day:
“Actual sessions of a multi-day
class are offered synchronously or
asynchronously, so that students
who cannot attend all sessions
can still keep up with the flow of
the course” (p. 60).
Types of blends
Program level
More typical at higher
education (degree) levels
(Graham, Allen, & Ure,
2005).
The corresponding models
of this blend are:
Participants choose a mix
between F2F courses and
online courses, or the course
offerings (composed of F2F
and online courses) are
prearranged by the program.
There are numerous degree
programs in which students
take specified courses on
campus and the remainder
online.
BL in action…
Different ways to implement BL (Friesen, 2012):
• F2F driver  where the teacher drives the instruction, which is
augmented with digital tools.
• Rotation  where students cycle through a schedule of independent
online study & F2F classroom time.
• Flex  most of the curriculum is delivered via a digital platform and
teachers are available for F2F consultation & support.
• Self-blend  students choose to augment their traditional learning with
online course work.
Mission Two.
Identify the types of
blends made at your
workplace/educational
institution.
A Distance LL model:
The case of UNED
-
Many DE institutions focus on the role of the ‘tutor’, who may
assist on the phone, by email.
UNED, founded in 1972, has evolved its methodology but kept
the original network of distributed Associate and Support
Centres, which enables a BL approach:
- Optional weekly F2F support sessions:
- focus on the ‘crucial&complex’ aspects of a given subject
- nowadays subservient to technology! (L oral interaction)
- proctored exams
A Distance LL model:
The case of UNED
– Over 200,000 students, 9 faculties, 2 engineering schools, a
language centre & a methodological research centre 
• >50 degree & postgraduate (master & doctorate) programs
• >50 professional training courses.
– Work undertaken by >1400 lecturers & 6900 tutors
(with the assistance of 2000 admin staff approx.).
– Central campus in Madrid, 61 regional study centres & 80
extensions distributed throughout Spain + 11 countries.
The Flipped Classroom (Khan, 2004)
• Traditional learning environment reversed:
– (online) instructional content (e.g., watch lectures,
carry out research) delivered outside the
classroom.
– activities (e.g., homework) moved into the
classroom to be undertaken under teacher’s
supervision.
Network of Associate Centres
Centros
Asociados
18
A Distance LL model:
The case of UNED
• Role division and interaction between the teaching teams in the
headquarters in Madrid and the tutors in the associate centres.
• In the associate centres students do all their administrative duties
and take their final exams, and voluntarily attend around an hour
and a half face-to-face classes for each given subject on a weekly
basis given by (assisting) tutors.
• In the meanwhile, the teachers at the UNED headquarters in
Madrid remain sole responsible for course design, material
selection (or creation), telephonic consultation and evaluation.
UNED students:
Support & orientation
 Open actions
• Prospective students
orientation
• Zero courses (on-line & F2F)
 Registered students actions
• Student campus information
• Online induction communities
• Further courses
• Improved students and tutors’
guides (3 per subject)
Virtual courses (platformbased), proctored exams,
printed, audio-visual and
multimedia materials, web
conferencing, virtual learning
communities, on-site
assistance from professortutors at the associate
centres, resource centres.
Activities, orientation & planning in the
virtual course
 Working plan
• (Explicit: competencesobjectives-activities-resultsevaluation).
 Contents delivered in multiple
formats (attending
accessibility).
 Learning activities.
 Practical tools (e.g., access to
Second Life platform).
 Synchronous & asynchronous
communication tools.
 Resources (e.g., glossaries).
Attend diversity…
Attention Unit for and Volunteers
(UNIDIS)
4000 students
Higher Education Programme for
Penitentiaries
1000 students
Universidad de La Sabana blends…
Proficiency
Program
Plan
Umbrella
• English services offered to the entire educational community, including
students, teachers and administrative staff.
• Both comprise of seven English levels and are sequenced in following the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
Universidad de La Sabana blends…
Proficiency
Program
• Students enrolled in the
Proficiency program must
complete each course in
80 hours, 16 of
independent study and 64
of face-to-face
participation.
• Students have 4
hours/week F2F time with
instructor.
Plan
Umbrella
• Framed upon the Flipped
classroom approach.
• Developed in 12 modules.
• Each course 144 hours,
79% of independent study
and 22% of face-to-face
participation.
Curricular adaptations…
In the PU program, students meet
F2F once a week on campus with the
assigned instructor, and are also
offered
self-access
learning
opportunities through the modules
hosted in the university LMS
(Moodle) and its corresponding
services and tools.
Curricular adaptations…
Curricular adaptations…
•
•
•
Face-to-face session  Speaking
session + skill-development learning
tasks, SCORM learning objects.
Automated feedback system
Learners can use their assessment
prompts prior-to the meeting with
their face-to-face course instructor.
The weekly speaking session is
planned for 60- 120 minutes, and at
times, it can be either planned
individually or in small groups (no
more than 6 students and instructor
per room).
Mission Three.
Based on the two university
cases examined, list two
principles you learned from
these cases, so you can take
them into account when
blending from now on.
Our study (2017)
Participants were 22 BL in-service teachers from Colombia and
Spain, teaching either at undergraduate or graduate levels. The
average age of participants was years. Data was collected through
an online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The
questionnaire was distributed to 30 people, 22 of whom
responded. The follow-up semi-structured interviews were held
with 10 participants.
Our study (2017)
Both instruments inquired about their
instructional experiences in BL, and
included areas such as of assessment,
professional development, BL on-going
strategies, constraints, opportunities, as
well as learners’ identified needs,
challenges and profiles reflected in the
BL environment.
Our study (2017)
• We adhered to purposive
sampling criteria (Patton, 1990),
as a mechanism to select
information-rich cases for study
in depth.
• Data was examined through the
constant-comparison method of
qualitative data (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2003), framed upon the
grounded theory approach
(Strauss and Corbin, 2008).
Our study (2017)
Three main
difficulties were
accounted for in this
group of participants
after having
triangulated the
information.
Instructional
design:
Sequencing
Adaptation
to BL
Engagement
Difficulties
Other difficulties mentioned by some participants included large classes management,
support to designers and instructors, and technical problems.
Category 1: Engagement
Students’ low engagement and participation
associated with lack of study and self-regulatory
skills (study skills, feelings of frustration).
Category 1: Engagement
“Unless students have a strong intrinsic
motivation, it is common to find participants
who are very enthusiastic at the beginning, but
then have other priorities and find it difficult to
complete the course”.
Participant 5. Q1.
“Many students aren't consistent
enough and it's hard to make them
follow the course”.
Participant 7. Q1.
“There have several problems but the
most common one is ss' lack of interest.
A great number of ss are reluctant to do
some "extra" work on their own, as it
the teacher's job to explain everything”.
Participant 14. Q1.
Category 2: Instructional design
“The main difficulty lies in the correct
programming of the didactic material.”
Participant 3. Q1.
Faulty instructional design Difficulties to plan
and sequence lessons.
“Articulation of content and time allotted”
responsibility and collaborate in non-F2F tasks”
Participant 15. Q1.
Category 3: Adaptation to BL
“Ss commitment to work on the activities suggested, as we use the flipped
learning approach it is mandatory to have some background knowledge before
the f2f class, so getting ss use to this approach has been quite difficult”.
Participant 20. Int.
Adaptation to BL…A bumpy road…
“Students' false
expectations of the amount
and quality of work
demanded”
Participant 12. Int.
Students are not normally keen on
certain activities such as forums
and assignments since they prefer
the presence of a guide if they
need to make any inquiry.
responsibility and collaborate in
non-F2F tasks”
Participant 11 Q1.
Lessons learned
Principle 1: Think blended, dream blended.
Challenges generally take place in the understanding of the
rationale of use of BL, since for some practitioners BL
presupposes an ‘automatic’ tendency to transfer face-to-face
content to online environments, which generally ends in faulty
design and development of BL tasks, lessons, and (even)
courses.
Lessons learned
Principle 2: Understand and speak the same language.
• The understanding of academic practice in BL is a prerequisite for the design and development of appropriate
strategies that assist effective implementation of BL.
• Burdens are often caused by lack of adequate and sufficient
training in BL, and as Torrisi-Steele and Drew (2013)
suggested, there is an urgent need in the field to understand
not only why academics may choose to engage in BL, but
also, once they are engaged, why some decide to integrate
technology to create “transformative blends” while others
choose “minimally impacting blends”.
Lessons learned
Principle 3: Shout for help, give help.
Faculty and staff need to be conveniently trained to ensure that
the design components are specifically aligned for skill-,
attitude-, or competency-learning (Valiathan, 2002; Hofmann,
2003) so that students can effectively engage in online
components, find clear expectations and purposes to develop
their academic activities and at the same time be easily
involved in interactions with peers, teachers, interfaces, content
and observation.
Lessons learned
Principle 4: Focus, focus, focus
• Efforts on behalf of the instructors should rely on planning
and adjusting activities and delivery modes to better suit
students’ preferences, aptitudes and skills while they also
develop the necessary digital literacy skills that help them
excel in their educational domains.
• I argue that BL initiatives must evolve, not
only to prepare students to satisfy their
personal learning needs but also to foster
academic community outreach and
guarantee high quality standards in rich
and flexible scenarios (Cuesta,
forthcoming).
Lessons learned
Principle 5: Create BL communities of practice
BL agents need to build on urgently an awareness and effective
action-oriented culture that enables stakeholders, instructors
and learners to overcome the relevant technical,
methodological and expertise burdens they might have,
through efficient and timely cooperation among BL teams.
Lessons learned
Principle 6: Strive for quality…
Quality needs to be monitored and solid improvement plans
hosted by the institutions, national ministries and boards of
education, assisted by accreditation entities should include
programs to support blended instruction initiatives to aim at
guaranteeing the provision of high quality and updated services
across educational sectors.
Opportunities
Mission 4
Pair/Triad work: Choose the principle that
most called your attention and mention a
specific goal you will set to make it happen in
the upcoming week/month.
Closing sparks…
The sustainability of a BL community
that teams up with transnational
recognized BL communities should be
a major goal of practitioners and
scholar, represented through their
presence in academic activities such
as conferences and scholarly
publication teams.
By doing so, we will
broaden the analysis and
the scope of BL while we
impact our communities
of learners, and of
practice!
Closing sparks…
Mission 5
Work on the BL handout Share ideas with
your colleagues who attended this session,
and, also with those who didn´t! 
Thank you!
Dr. Liliana CUESTA MEDINA
[email protected]
Dr. Elena BÁRCENA
[email protected]