The term blended learning has been growing in popularity, particularly intraining and development arenas. For the last few years, much has been writ-ten on blended learning, but it is not a new concept. The resurgence of thediscussions and the publication of articles on blended learning might be tied

to the view that many are now seeing it as a replacement of e-learning (Bersin &Associates, 2003).

Although the term blended learning may be fairly new to many, the concept is not (Lim,2002; Marsh, 2001; Smith, 2001). Blended learning, which has been referred to at dif-ferent times as hybrid, flexible, or distributed learning, is a combination of the use ofelectronic learning tools (software, email, World Wide Web including video and/oraudio streaming, television, voice mail, conference call) and traditional face-to-faceclassroom teaching strategies/techniques to ensure maximum effectiveness (Kriger,2003; Marsh, 2001; Smith 2001). Driscoll (2002) identifies blended learning as four dif-ferent concepts: (a) the combination or mixture of modes of web-based technology toaccomplish an educational goal; (b) the combination of various pedagogical approachesto produce optimal learning outcomes with or without instructional technology; (c) thecombination of any form of instructional technology with face-to-face instructor-ledtraining; and (d) the mixture or combination of instructional technology with actual jobtasks to create a harmonious effect of learning and working. Irons and coauthors (2002)also pointed out that a variety of mixed modalities of learning are possible in blendedlearning (see van der Westhuizen & Krige, 2003 for a listing of major characteristics ofblended learning courses). Blended learning, therefore, can be described as the use ofsynchronous or asynchronous technologies and traditional face-to-face instruction, indifferent forms or combinations, so as to facilitate teaching and learning.

This mixture or blending of different technologies with the traditional face-to-faceapproach to teaching and learning has given rise to a new paradigm in the educationenvironment. According to Osguthorpe and Graham (2003), the innovative uses of tech-nology have begun to blur the distinctions between traditional face-to-face and morerecent distance learning environments. Ward and LaBranche (2003) perceive blendedlearning as a powerful strategy that expands and enhances the learning experience andoffers the opportunity to redefine how associations approach meetings and education.

Blended Learning In Education,Training,and Developmentby Devon C. Duhaney, PhD

Blended Learning In Education,Training,and Development

Performance Improvement • Volume 43 • Number 8 35

36 www.ispi.org • SEPTEMBER 2004

The emergence of blended learning as a preferred way of con-ducting education, training, and development is allowingcorporate trainers and higher education faculty to integratethe advantages of face-to-face classroom interactions withpositive characteristics of distance learning (Kriger, 2003).This article focuses on blended learning as a tool for educa-tion, training, and development that is also changing the dis-tance education model.

The Evolution of a Process

Distance education has evolved from the use of correspon-dence courses to interactive electronic media (e.g., com-pressed video, videoconferencing, streaming video, and theInternet). The increasing use of a variety of technologiesthroughout society and their integration in educationalactivities have resulted in the need to rethink the way inwhich education, training, and development activities areconducted. Electronic learning (e-learning) or online learn-ing became popular, particularly during the 1990s, leadingto the extensive employment of asynchronous learning foreducation, training, and development within the corporateand higher educational sectors. E-learning has beenembraced by many organizations as an advantageous, if notsuperior, approach to delivering training (Weaver, 2002).However, as Kriger (2003) states, the main problem with acompletely asynchronous training course, as observed bycorporate analysts, is that it disregards the fact that educa-tion is best accomplished face to face. The blendedapproach to the integration of technology for pedagogy andlearning has long been recognized as the preferred waywithin the education community (Kriger, 2003; AmericanFederation of Teachers, 2000).

As information technologies continue to develop and indi-viduals become more comfortable integrating them for dis-tance education activities, there has been greater interest inthe use of tools that help accomplish stated teaching andlearning objectives. In selecting technology for distance

learning, educators may pick and choose or blend technolo-gies to provide the best approach (Picciano, 2001). In thecorporate sector, blended learning has been recognized asproviding a rich educational experience (Rooney, 2003).Singh (2003) remarks that an increasing number of learningdesigners are experimenting with blended learning models,which anecdotal evidence indicates is more effective as wellas offering more choices. Rooney (2003) also refers to aThomson Learning study, which found that a structuredcurriculum of blended learning will dramatically increaseemployee productivity compared to single-delivery options.

Design and Blended Learning

Historically, as newer information technologies were tappedfor use in distance education, the emphasis was seeminglymore on how the tools and technologies could be employedin the learning environment rather than on the design ofinstruction in which they could be effectively integratedand used to facilitate learning. There seemed to have beenmore interest in employing the medium than regard to theireffective and efficient usage to facilitate learning, based onsound pedagogical and learning practices. Essentially, thetechnology is often seen as the driving force in the process.With blended learning, however, the design of instructionwith concern for the learners and the objectives to beaccomplished must be determined before the experiencecan be considered valuable. For a successful teaching andlearning experience, careful thought must be given to thecorrect blend of technology, face-to-face instruction, andstrategies/techniques. It is vital to ensure that the differentlearning media are employed appropriately and in the rightmix (Dennis, 2002).

To ensure that the blended learning experience is successful,the use of the instructional design process is important.Instructional design helps to determine the strategies that willlead to accomplishing the goals that were established basedon needs analyses (Lim, 2002; Merrill, 1996). In instructionaldesign models, different phases—analysis, design, develop-ment, implementation, and evaluation—are included toensure a good learning environment and often operate simul-taneously (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2001; Kemp, Morrison, &Ross, 1998; Lever-Duffy, McDonald, & Mizell, 2005; Lim,2002; Merrill, 1996; Reigeluth, 1983). Voos (2004) indicatesthat designers and instructors of blended courses have thelargest set of instructional methods and learning situations tochoose from. For blended learning pedagogy to be effective, itmust be well thought out and designed (Kriger, 2003; Zenger& Uehlein, 2001).

Troha (2002) asserts that poor planning (i.e., poor instruc-tional design) is the reason so many blended learning ini-tiatives turn into frustrating boondoggles that consume farmore time and money than anyone anticipated. Simonsonand coauthors (2003) also indicate that the instructional

The increasing use of a variety of technologies

throughout society and theirintegration in educationalactivities have resulted in

the need to rethink the way in which education,

training, and developmentactivities are conducted.

design process helps the instructor make informed deci-sions about technology use. Careful use of this processhelps determine the proper mixture of strategies/tech-niques to be employed pedagogically, the selection ofassignments/exercises, and the selection of appropriatetools/technologies to help facilitate learning. Additionally,the use of the instructional design process helps ensure thatappropriate interactions occur throughout the process ofteaching and learning.

One important aspect of the design process for blendedinstruction and learning is the extent to which the differentelements—synchronous, asynchronous, and face to face—are combined. Finding the right blend of online and face-to-face instruction is a balancing act for both instructors andstudents (Christensen, 2003). A study to determine the bal-ance between the face-to-face and online components of ablended course revealed that there was greater potential forinstruction and interaction in both the face-to-face andonline environments than there was time to use this instruc-tional potential (Christensen, 2003). Further fine-tuning isneeded to blend strategies, minimizing frustration andwasted time and effort for students so they can use bothforums for instruction optimally (Christensen, 2003).

Khan (2004) proposes a framework that is subsumed in thedifferent instructional design models. This framework withits eight dimensions—instructional, pedagogical, technolog-ical, interface design, evaluation, management, resourcesupport, and ethical—helps to organize thinking and toensure that the resulting learning program creates a mean-ingful experience (Singh, 2003).

Initiating the Blend

Evidence that blended learning is now being adopted as apreferred way for education, training, and development canbe found in both corporations and higher education alike aslearners seek to benefit from online learning while retainingthe unique attributes of face-to-face instruction (Kriger,2003; van der Westhuizen & Krige, 2003). Online activitiesare used to supplement what is done in the face-to-faceinstructional environment. For example, course manage-ment software such as BlackBoard or WebCT are often usedto facilitate online discussions, online quizzes, the storageof instructional materials (e.g., course outlines, handouts,assignments), web links to relevant information, and as anavenue for students to submit completed assignments oreven to engage in collaborative (group work) activities.Additionally, some instructors may even create their ownclass email lists to share information and maintain contactwith their students.

To initiate a blended learning approach, the strategies/techniques to be used should be carefully appraised. It islikely that a number of technologies, such as high-speed

Internet connections and teleconferencing facilities,already exist within the organization/institution(McCampbell, 2001; Smith, 2001). It should be noted, how-ever, that the use of blended learning activities should beintroduced gradually. That is, instructors can begin thecourse in the traditional face-to-face environment andintroduce the different strategies/techniques and technol-ogy as they become more comfortable using them and areable to determine how their use will help students achievethe learning targets. McCampbell (2001) suggests that agood approach to blending e-leaning is to start small andscale the program as necessary. Eventually, instructorsshould be able to arrive at a good balance to create therequired blend. With time, the blended learning experiencemay include the use of both simple and complex media(Bersin & Associates, 2003).

In adopting a blended learning approach for education,training, and development, learners should be carefullyinstructed in how this method works before they begininstruction. Information on the strategies and techniques tobe used can be communicated to students electronically viaemail, voice mail, announcement within a course manage-ment system, or in printed format. Because there are variousmeans by which blended learning can be accomplished,careful thought must be given to how the initial informationwill be communicated to the students. If the instructor andstudents meet in a face-to-face setting at the beginning of theclass, that will be an ideal situation to apprise students ofhow the other aspects of the class will be conducted.Blended learning allows students to engage in the learningexperience through a medium or media that better suit theirdiverse learning styles (Dennis, 2002).

Conclusion

Blended learning has been accepted as an effective approachto education, training, and development. This practice usestraditional instructional practices and integrates synchro-nous and asynchronous technology to provide learners witha learning environment that facilitates a variety of learningstyles. As instructors become more comfortable with theintegration of technologies in teaching and learning, it isinevitable that there will be a move toward establishing ablended or distributed learning environment.

Performance Improvement • Volume 43 • Number 8 37

It should be noted, however,that the use of blended learning activities should be introduced gradually.

38 www.ispi.org • SEPTEMBER 2004

References

American Federation of Teachers. (2000). Distance educa-tion: Guidelines for good practice. Retrieved January 6,2004, from http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/downloadable/distance.pdf.

Bersin & Associates. (2003). Blended learning: Whatworks? Retrieved November 12, 2003, fromhttp://www.bersin.com.

Christensen, T.K. (2003). Finding the balance:Constructivist pedagogy in a blended course. TheQuarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 235-243.

Dennis, C. (2002). A special blend. People Management,8(5), 51.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2001). The systematicdesign of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond thehype. E-Learning, 3(3), 54.

Irons, L.R., Keel, R., & Bielema, C.L. (2002). Blended learn-ing and learner satisfaction: Keys to user acceptance.USDLA Journal, 16(12).

Khan, B.H. (2004). A framework for e-learning. RetrievedJune 15,2004, from http://bookstoread.com/framework/

Kemp, J.E., Morrison, G.R., & Ross, S.M. (1998). Designingeffective instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Kriger, T J. (2003, September). Trends in distance educa-tion: The shift to blended learning. AFT On Campus, 16.

Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J.B., & Mizell, A.P. (2005).Teaching and learning with technology (2nd ed.). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Lim, C.P. (2002). Trends in online learning and their impli-cations for schools. Educational Technology, 42(6), 43-54.

Marsh, J. (2001). How to design effective blended learning.Retrieved September 9, 2003, from http://www.brandon-hall.com.

McCampbell, B. (2001). Blending the basics. PrincipalLeadership (High School Ed.), 2(1), 71-73.

Merrill, M.D. (1996). Instructional transaction theory:Instructional design based on knowledge objects.Educational Technology, 36(3), 30-37.

Osguthorpe, R.T., & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended environ-ments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review ofDistance Education, 4(3), 227-233.

Picciano, A.G. (2001). Distance learning: Making connec-tions across virtual space and time. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Reigeluth, C.M. (1983). Instructional design theories andmodels: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rooney, J.E. (2003). Blended learning. AssociationManagement, 28-32.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S.(2003). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundationsof distance education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill/Prentice Hall.

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

Smith, J.M. (2001). Blended learning: An old friend gets anew name. Executive Update Online. Retrieved January 8,2004, from http://www.gwsae.org/Executiveupdate/2001/March/blended.htm.

Troha, F.J. (2002). Bulletproof instructional design®: Amodel for blended learning. USDLA Journal, 16(5).

Voos, R. (2004). Blended learning—What is it and wheremight it take us? Retrieved February 15, 2004, fromhttp://www.aln.org/publications/view/v2n1/blended1.htm.

Ward, J., & LaBranche, G.A. (2003). Blended learning: Theconvergence of e-learning and meetings. FranchisingWorld, 35(4), 22-23.

Weaver, P. (2002). Preventing e-learning failure. Training &Development, 56(8), 45-50.

van der Westhuizen, D., & Krige, H. (2003). Ending thedivide between online learning and classroom instructionusing a blended learning approach. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Zenger, J., & Uehlein, C. (2001). Why blended will win.Training & Development, 55(8), 54-60.

Devon C. Duhaney received his PhD in Workforce Education and Development

from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. He is an Assistant Professor at

the State University of New York (SUNY) at New Paltz and teaches courses in

instructional technology and assessment. Prior to his position at SUNY at New

Paltz, Dr. Duhaney worked as an instructional design specialist with the University

of Maine system. His research interests include the integration of technology in

education, training, and development; teacher education and technology inte-

gration; distance learning/blended learning; and assessment of learner perfor-

mance. Devon may be reached at duhaneyd@newpaltz.edu.