Blended learning in vocational education: teachers’ conceptions of blended learning and their approaches to teaching and design

Blended learning in vocational education: teachers’conceptions of blended learning and their approachesto teaching and design

Ana-Maria Bliuc • Grant Casey •

Agnieszka Bachfischer • Peter Goodyear •

Robert A. Ellis

Published online: 26 January 2012

� The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2012

Abstract This paper presents research exploring teachers’ experiences of using

blended learning in vocational education. Teachers involved in designing and

teaching using blended learning from a major Australian vocational education

provider participated in the study. They received open-ended questionnaires asking

to describe their conceptions of blended learning and their approaches to teaching

and design for blended learning environments. Teachers’ responses were content-

analysed from a phenomenographic perspective. Their descriptions illustrate a

relatively wide spectrum of ideas about the nature of blended learning, suggesting

that teachers tend to have qualitatively different conceptions about blended learning,

and tend to adopt qualitatively different approaches to both teaching and design for

blended learning. Quantitative analyses investigating possible relationships between

teachers’ conceptions and approaches were also conducted. Implications of the

findings for further research and practice are discussed.

Keywords Blended learning � Blended learning design � Conceptions �Approaches � Vocational education � Teacher experiences

A.-M. Bliuc (&)

School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University, Level 5, Building H,

Caulfield East, VIC 3145, Australia

e-mail: [email protected]

G. Casey

NSW Department of Education and Training, Sydney, Australia

A. Bachfischer � P. Goodyear

Centre for Research on Computer supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo),

University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

R. A. Ellis

Institute for Teaching and Learning, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

123

Aust. Educ. Res. (2012) 39:237–257

DOI 10.1007/s13384-012-0053-0

Introduction

Vocational education in Australia is faced with an increasing array of challenges

that must be addressed if high standards of education and relevance to students and

workplace are to be maintained. Significant amongst these are concerns about

understanding the nature and role of technology in learning. Over the last decade,

the Australian vocational education sector has expanded the range of learning

experiences it provides to students. A key aspect of this evolution is the introduction

of innovative learning experiences such as online learning, typically used to

complement face-to-face learning. The umbrella term that covers these learning

experiences is ‘blended learning’. In the literature, blended learning is often referred

to as a combination of multiple delivery media designed to complement each other

and promote meaningful learning (Singh 2003). In order to work as an educational

tool—that is, to provide students with an enhanced experience that supports deeper

understanding—blended learning solutions must be carefully implemented. First,

the quality of the elements that make up the blend is crucial, but also how these

parts are blended is equally important. That is, it is essential that different elements

of the learning experience are integrated in order to provide students with a holistic

learning experience—integration having been recognised as a core challenge in the

literature (see Bliuc et al. 2007; Draper et al. 1996; Rushby 1979). The definition

preferred in the context of this study is blended learning, seen as the systematic

integration of learning in face-to-face and online situations within the same course

in order to support the development of student understanding.

There are a range of reasons why blended learning works particularly well for

vocational education. For example, vocational learning usually requires learners to

apply the abstract knowledge gained in formal educational settings in a workplace

context (Butler and Brooker 1998). One way of achieving this is by integrating

workplace-based activities into the educational design, using online resources to do so.

Also, discipline-specific information literacy—provided by online learning—is

highly valued by employers. This is reflected in increased expectations placed on

recent recruits and experienced employees alike to display expertise in inquiry using

the internet and to integrate knowledge from many sources. Well-designed blended

learning programs have real potential to help with this (Sharpe et al. 2006; Concannon

et al. 2005; National Institute of Adult Continuing Education [NIACE] 2009).

In New South Wales, where the present study is set, the main provider of vocational

education is the state system Technical and Further Education (TAFE), one of the

largest providers of vocational education in the world (comprising 10 institutes with

more than 500,000 students and teachers). The current study explores variations in

how TAFE teachers understand the purposes of blended learning, and in the

approaches they take when teaching and designing for blended learning contexts.

Based on studies conducted in the university sector (see below), we believe that the

ways in which teachers conceive of and approach blended learning, are likely to

impact on their students’ learning experiences. Also, we argue that a better

understanding of teachers’ conceptions and approaches in this area can provide

vocational education leaders and managers with a much firmer base on which to build

standards, guidelines and policy advice about the effective use of blended learning.

238 A.-M. Bliuc et al.

123

Background

For this study the theoretical perspective that informs both the premises of the research

and the methodological approach adopted is phenomenography (Marton and Saljo

1976a, b; Marton and Booth 1997). Phenomenography has been described as a field of

inquiry that aims to analyse and understand experiences of phenomena around us

(Marton 1981, 1994). The phenomenographic model assumes the existence of

structural and referential aspects of any phenomenon (Marton and Booth 1997; Marton

and Pong 2005). In this sense, teaching and learning can be experienced in terms of

structural aspects (the constituent parts) and referential aspects (those aspects that give

meaning to the phenomenon that was experienced). Within a phenomenographic

approach to the experience of teaching in blended learning contexts, we focus on

teachers’ conceptions of blended learning (the ‘what’ representing the object of

experience) and their approaches to teaching and design for blended learning (the

‘how’ representing the ways in which a direct object is experienced). According to this

perspective both conceptions and approaches can be understood as made up of

structural and referential aspects. For conceptions, what teachers think of their

students’ learning can be divided into its parts (structure) and its meaning (reference;

see Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Prosser and Millar 1989; Prosser et al. 1994). For

approaches to teaching and design, the structural aspects are reflected in strategies

used in both teaching and design, while the referential aspects are reflected in the

intentions underpinning these strategies (see Trigwell and Prosser 2004).

Research on teaching and learning from a phenomenographic perspective shows

that there are qualitative variations in teachers’ conceptions of student learning and

teaching (Wood 2000; Akerlind 2003; 2004), and that they are reflected in the ways

in which they approach their teaching (Prosser et al. 1994; Prosser and Trigwell

1999). Other studies also found further associations between teachers’ conceptions

and approaches (Kember and Kwan 2002) and their students’ approaches to learning

(e.g. Gow and Kember 1993; Kember and Gow 1994; Martin and Balla 1991;

Richardson 2005; Samuelowicz and Bain 1992; Prosser and Trigwell 1999) or more

generally with the quality of student learning (Kember 1997).

The current research builds on previous studies of associations between teachers’

conceptions of student learning and their approaches to teaching (e.g. Prosser et al.

1994; Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Trigwell et al. 1994) but extends their goals by

exploring teachers’ conceptions of blended learning and their approaches to both

design and teaching in the context of vocational education. The underlying objective

of this exploration was to identify patterns of teaching and design that are more

likely to promote effective student learning.

The study

Participants were 81 teachers from TAFE NSW with experience in using blended

learning strategies. Open-ended questionnaires asking them to describe their

conceptions of blended learning and their approaches to teaching and design for

blended learning were administered by email (the response rate was 80%).

Blended learning in vocational education 239

123

Research site

The institution where the research took place is the major government-funded

provider of vocational training in New South Wales. Its main objectives are to

deliver flexible and timely solutions to meet the needs of students, industry,

community and an ever-changing economy (NSW Department of Education and

Training [NSW DET] 2008). In meeting these objectives, TAFE courses are

structured as online, by distance, face-to-face, or combinations of these. The central

principle is flexible high quality education for all, so that students with very diverse

backgrounds and needs can design their own program of study, depending on their

goals and situation (e.g. re-entering the workforce, changing careers, or transition

from school).

Method

Teachers’ conceptions and their approaches (to teaching and to design for learning

in blended contexts) were explored by asking participants to respond to the

following questions:

• What do you mean by blended learning? What is blended learning? (Conceptions)

• How do you approach teaching in blended contexts? What do you do and why

do you do it? (Approaches to teaching)

• How do you approach design for learning in blended contexts? What do you do

and why do you do it? (Approaches to design)

Analysis

Teachers’ responses were content-analysed by four researchers following a

methodology based on phenomenographic principles. In phenomenography, the

analysis involves both discovery (Hasselgren and Beach 1997) and construction of

knowledge (Bruce 2003), so the outcomes of the analysis are not predetermined and

tested but they emerge in the process of analysis from the available data. The

researchers are expected to keep an open mind to changing the categories perhaps

several times in the process, as new themes might emerge (Akerlind 2005), while at

the same time maintaining awareness of the variation in the ways respondents might

perceive the same phenomenon (Bowden 2005; Marton and Booth 1997).

Specifically, in this study, teachers’ descriptions of their conceptions and

approaches were analysed in terms of referential and structural aspects consistent

with the methodology described in Prosser et al. (1994). Our analysis was aimed at

identifying variation in teachers’ conceptions of and approaches to blended learning

in the particular context of vocational education, and understanding the relational

nature of this variation.

The outcomes of the analysis (hierarchical categories with varying levels of

inclusiveness) were discussed and revised with a specialist from vocational education,

in order to improve the communicability and the relevance of the categories of

description. The qualitative analysis was complemented by quantitative statistical


123

analyses (e.g. distribution of responses across categories, associations between

conceptions, approaches to teaching and approaches to design).

Results

Teachers’ conceptions of blended learning

Teachers’ descriptions of their conceptions of blended learning revealed a

significant amount of variation in these conceptions. As Fig. 1 illustrates, five

hierarchical categories were identified, ranging from descriptions that focus on the

lifelong learning needs of the students (A and B) to categories that describe blended

learning as a way to deliver learning materials in a more convenient and practical

way by using online tools (C–E). There is a qualitative shift in teachers’ conceptions

from category B to C. Specifically, categories A and B describe more cohesive

conceptions of blended learning (Prosser and Trigwell 1999). These descriptions

place student learning in the centre and are concerned with enriching the student

experience in order to make knowledge more usable in the real world. On the other

hand, categories C–E describe conceptions that are mostly about alternative modes

of delivery. In these descriptions the focus is not so much on student learning but on

concerns to meet practical and logistical needs better. These can be described as

fragmented conceptions.

Category A: blended learning to empower students for lifelong learning

This category describes highly elaborated, cohesive conceptions about blended

learning. Blended learning is described as an empowering learning experience for

students—one that goes far beyond the classroom experience. Although the

relevance of using new technologies in education is acknowledged, the focus is

firmly on student learning. Category A is hierarchically higher than the other

categories and the most comprehensive (in the sense that higher level categories

also include the lower-level conceptions). The following quotes capture well the

essence of this category.

When I speak of blended learning I have the concept of lifelong learning in mind,

learning that occurs within the workplace and outside the classroom using a

variety of concepts that often (but not always) utilize technology. Blended

learning in the classroom and or workplace therefore needs to empower studentswith digital literacy and critical skills to be creative, innovative, and connect

with the technology that they use in day to day work and life… to be aware of

change at a given point in time, find and act on information, then use this to

achieve their own life goals… (Participant 52)

My understanding of blended learning is to offer the participants/learner

flexibility and currency within their field of study, encouraging people to

pursue life long learning and to enable participants as much as possible.

(Participant 33)


123

Category B: blended learning for students’ needs and learning goals

Category B, although less comprehensive in comparison to category A, is inclusive

of conceptions found in categories C to E. There is a qualitative shift in teachers’

conceptions from category B to C. Category B describes cohesive conceptions

focused on student learning and meeting student learning needs. The applicability of

knowledge to the real world, and benefits of learning for the student are key aspects

A. Blended learning to empower students for lifelong learning: Blended learning is learning beyond classroom and online settings, is a rich learning experience that enables/empowers students to continuously enhance their knowledge and skills (helping build abilities which transfer in real life).

B. Blended learning for students’ needs and learning goals: Blended learning is flexible learning which meets students’ various learning needs and can achieve different learning goals.

C. Blended learning as a combination of different ways of delivery to improve students’ access to learning and meet their practical needs: Blended learning is an alternative (flexible) way of delivery to help students overcome physical constraints such as time and space.

D. Blended learning as an aggregation of face-to-face and (mainly) online but also other types of technologically driven delivery: Blended learning is seen just as putting together some face-to-face with some online delivery elements (any “mix” of more than one mode of delivery/the 2 different modes are not integrated but rather delivered as 2 separate things).

E. Blended learning as the use of technological teaching tools only: Blended learning is seen just as delivery using some technological tools (Internet, CD-ROMS, interactive media, etc.).

Fig. 1 The hierarchy of categories for teachers’ conceptions of blended learning


123

of this category. The flexibility that a blended learning module can provide is

addressed in terms of better meeting learning needs (as illustrated by the quotes

below).

Blended learning means the opportunity provided to students/learners to have

different modes of delivery available to facilitate and enhance their learning.

The modes of delivery will depend on the resources and options available to

the training organisation and then balancing this with the needs of the learner.

(Participant 16)

… Blended learning is more than delivery learning to meet the demands of our

living, it is about addressing existing skills of the learner and providing gap

training. (Participant 25)

Category C: combination of different ways of delivery to improve students’ accessto learning and meet their practical needs

This category represents the first in a series of categories of conceptions with a focus

on delivery and the practical/logistical aspects of education provision, rather than on

student learning. In particular, category C describes conceptions of blended learning

as a more flexible and convenient way to deliver education compared to face-to-face

delivery. Responses in this category reflect a pragmatic perspective and the focus

here is on how to use the available resources in ways which would make economic

sense:

I see it as an alternative way of reaching otherwise unreachable people. A way

to assist people to get education whereas they would not be able due to tyranny

of distance, life responsibilities and lack of structured time. (Participant 7)

My perspective on blended learning is incorporating many facets of delivery

so that learning can occur when dealing with students in remote locations; a

huge variance in a cohort of students abilities, maturity, needs and capabilities;

as well as trying to fit a worthwhile teaching/learning experience into the

constraints of budgets, availability of teachers and resources available.

(Participant 2)

Category D: aggregation of face-to-face and (mainly) online but also other typesof technologically driven delivery

The conceptions described in category D are also predominantly pragmatic, with no

mention of student learning. Responses in this category include definitions of

blended learning which are strictly at a descriptive level, usually not including any

reference to underlying philosophies of teaching and learning. The concept of

blended learning is over-simplified, being mostly described as a mix of two different

ways of delivery, as reflected in the quotes below:

Blended learning is when students are offered two or more modes of delivery

concurrently. For example, if a student is completing an online program there

may be face-to-face workshops offered to supplement the on-line material.


123

Further students may also receive additional support through email and phone

contact. (Participant 57)

In our situation we use the term to indicate a teaching program that includes

more than one delivery form for learning. By this I mean that a single delivery

may be classroom delivery or online delivery but if we combine these two

teaching forms we then identify this as blended delivery. (Participant 11)

Category E: use of technological teaching tools only

Category E is somewhat similar to category D but it describes a more basic set of

conceptions of what blended learning is, reducing blended learning to ‘any type of

electronic delivery’. In this case, the face-to-face aspect, as well as more elaborated

conceptualisations of educational purpose, is completely overlooked:

Blended learning can be any mode of teaching other than face-to-face that is

delivered to students. (Participant 13)

Use of technology to enhance delivery. (Participant 28)

Teachers’ approaches to teaching in blended learning contexts

Teachers’ descriptions of approaches to teaching were classified in five hierarchi-

cally inclusive categories, ranging from approaches A and B, with their central

focus on improving student learning by providing students with a more holistic

learning experience (strategy) to help them cope better with complex workplace

demands (intentions), to approaches C–E, which are mostly concerned with the

convenient delivery of content (strategy) to help students meet course requirements

(intentions). The qualitative variation in complexity of teachers’ intentions and

strategies is reflected in the inclusiveness of the hierarchy of categories (see Fig. 2).

As in the case of conceptions, there is a qualitative shift between categories B and C

(from approaches focused on student learning to approaches focused on delivery).

Category A: teaching as an opportunity to enrich the learning experienceand to provide innovative ways to learn through the blended context

Responses from this category describe approaching teaching in a way which would

significantly contribute to improving student understanding and ensure meaningful

learning. The underlying intentions emerging from the responses suggest that

teachers in this category are concerned to provide students with a wider and more

meaningful learning experience. Teaching in blended learning contexts is seen as an

opportunity to expand the boundaries of the learning experience for students. In

terms of strategies, teachers tend to prefer to use creative and flexible ways of

teaching which would better equip students for the demands of the modern

workplaces. Teachers who describe their approaches to teaching in this way are

usually self-reflective in their practice and concerned about improving student

learning:


123

Reflecting on why I teach and where the value is for students, a constant in my

day-to-day work is the process of change itself. I am working in a continuous

state of change. Each day is a flux of: New information. New technologies.

New people within my network. New thoughts… The continual flow of ideas

from multiple sources affects the decisions I make and my actions in my

workplace. What enables me to cope and adapt to the change is my own

A. Teaching as an opportunity to enrich the learning experience and to provide innovative ways to learn through the blended context: Teachers focus on reflection and continuous improvement of teaching, with the intention to improve the quality of student learning and develop complex skills.

B. Teaching as a way of providing learning tailored to students’ needs based on a plan negotiated between student and teacher through the blended context: Teachers focus on learning goals and a learning plan with the intention to use affordances of the blended context to better meet learning needs.

C. Teaching with a focus on student support in relation to the social and psychological aspects of the interaction as well as technical aspects: Teachers focus on the support they can provide to students online, with the intention to ensure appropriate levels of computer literacy as well as to enhance contact between students and the teacher and promote the psychological wellbeing of the students.

D. Teaching with a focus on meeting students’ practical needs for convenience in a blended context: Teachers focus on meeting the practical needs of the students with the intention of making the whole process easier and more convenient for students.

E. Teaching with a focus on the process of providing accurate and detailed online content which can be easily accessed by students: Teachers focus on the laborious organisation of the materials and the process of online delivery (no reflection), with the intention to provide detailed and accurate materials to students.

Fig. 2 The hierarchy of categories for teachers’ approaches to teaching in blended learning contexts


123

creativity and learning from the ingenuity and knowledge of the people in my

networks such as TALO. (Participant 52)

Teaching in blended contexts is very much about being prepared to teach and

learn in different ways, to take risks, to experiment, to push boundaries and

changing from teacher to learner within the learning session. (Participant 58)

Category B: teaching as a way of providing learning tailored to students’ needsbased on a plan negotiated between student and teacher through the blendedcontext

Approaches to teaching in category B focus on student learning needs. Responses in

this category describe a more strategic approach compared to category A. That is, in

these responses there is a predominance of ideas of negotiation and learning

contracts between student and teacher. Here the approaches are still focused on

student learning—that is, the intention is to improve the learning experience by

making it more meaningful for students, but also adopting strategies towards

ensuring successful professional paths for students (also, there is less creativity and

experimenting involved, compared to category A).

The learning and assessment may be negotiated to suit the individual learner.

The blended learning environment may lead to small group learning together,

or individuals working on their own. The individual needs of the learners is the

main concern. In this context, I would work with each learner and work out a

learning plan and discuss the assessment requirements in detail. (Participant

39)

I would develop an overview for the student/s of what they should ideally be

doing when. I would factor into this a variety of different opportunities that

would meet specific needs of the identified learners. This may involve chat

sessions, workshops, telephone contact. There is no real one answer fits all—it

will greatly depend on the group of learners in front of me. (Participant 66)

Category C: teaching with a focus on student support in relation to the socialand psychological aspects of the interaction as well as technical aspects

Category C represents a qualitative transition to categories of teaching approaches

not focused on student learning but on other aspects of the learning experience.

These approaches are concerned with ensuring optimal student interaction to

increase a sense of participation, as well as with the technical aspects of the learning

experience. Although these are important aspects, these approaches are predom-

inantly focused on these dimensions, while neglecting to consider the development

of student understanding in a significant way.

It is very important to make the learner feel ‘at ease’ and comfortable with you

… Teachers must be available for participants/learner through a variety of

mediums (i.e., phone, email, messenger, etc.). The teacher must respond

quickly if the participants/learner contact them, as the participants/learner can

feel isolated. (Participant 33)


123

The approach is more about providing a ‘comfortable/safe’ learning environ-

ment wherein clear, frequent, caring communication effectively engages the

student and encourages the online student to ask questions of content,

assignment or just about the learning environment regardless of how trivial

they may perceive the question to be. This removes some of the barb of feeling

remote and disconnected. (Participant 56)

Category D: teaching with a focus on meeting students’ practical needsfor convenience in a blended context

Category D includes responses which describe approaches mostly focused on how

to meet students’ practical needs. They do not include references to student learning

needs and they mirror to a certain degree conceptions of blended learning structured

around pragmatic considerations. Again, although it is important to carefully

consider all pragmatic aspects of teaching and to effectively make use of all

practical benefits that come with blended learning, responses in this category reflect

less inclusive approaches, as the underlying intentions are to facilitate the learning

process rather than improve the quality of student learning.

We use these approaches and tools because it provides students the flexibility

to engage with programs in ways that are suited to their individual

circumstances. If students miss in-class sessions then there is also (in some

instances) the opportunity for them to review work they might have missed

through one of our online sessions. (Participant 38)

We provide Quality education and training so people can access the training in

rural and remote locations or at a time that is convenient to them as a learner.

(Participant 42)

Category E: teaching with a focus on the process of providing accurate and detailedonline content which can be easily accessed by students

Category E includes responses which describe approaches only focused on the

online delivery of materials; there is no or little concern for student learning and

understanding. This category of approaches reflects a tendency to focus exclusively

on ‘content and delivery’ almost completely, overlooking student learning. This

category is probably the closest to Trigwell and colleagues’ (Trigwell et al. 1994;

Trigwell and Prosser 1996) ‘teacher-focused with the intention of transmitting

information’ approach.

Class time would be used for the areas that have grey or non linear material

e.g. systems theory with completed interconnectedness. (Participant 72)

I have been using a blended style for 2-3 years and approach it as an

enormous amount of work, planning and focus on my part. It means that I

must also stay totally engaged in what I am doing with the learners (both

while preparing and during the various sessions as well as in between).

(Participant 14)


123

Teachers’ approaches to design for blended learning

In relation to teachers’ approaches to design, again five hierarchical categories of

responses were identified. These ranged from Category A—the most holistic and

qualitatively the most elaborated, focusing on designing for enhancing student

understanding to Category E—the most simplistic, focusing on designing blended

learning in a way which would allow re-using available resources in the most

economically sensible way. That is, the categories of approaches to design can be

seen as mirroring Biggs’ SOLO taxonomy (Biggs 1999) in terms of student learning

outcomes, ranging from approaches focused on student learning to approaches

focused on content and resources (see Fig. 3).

Category A: focus on students’ meaningful learning and the applicable aspectsof their learning

This category is the most comprehensive, and includes approaches to blended

learning design such as finding innovative learning activities and adjusting the

existing ones (strategy), with the purpose of helping students achieve meaningful

learning that is transferable to workplace situations (intention). This is done by

carefully considering students’ needs, interests, and ways in which they can learn

best. Responses in this category reflect a constant concern for selecting those

learning activities with the most practical relevance for students and which would

help them find ways of applying knowledge in their workplace. Student learning is

central for the approaches described in this category:

Project work is made as practical and applicable as possible so that students can

see the relevance of learning immediately. Design activities, case-studies so that

they are relevant, current and adaptable to many contexts in the blended learning

environment. Allow hands on learning for participants. (Participant 23)

There are a number of factors in design approach for blended learning:

Learning styles of student body. For each class the student body may differ in

their learning style so therefore a different blended approach may need to be

taken… Delivery content to match learning outcomes… Why do we do

blended learning?… We believe in making the student workplace aware and

workplace ready. Blended delivery gives us this. (Participant 11)

Category B: focus on achieving individualised learning outcomes and versatility(developing complex skills, competencies, knowledge)

Responses in this category describe approaches consistent with an awareness of

learning outcomes, oriented towards empowering students with new, complex skills

and knowledge. These approaches reflect concern to design blended learning with

the intention to enable students to have a more fulfilling learning experience. In

these descriptions, student learning plays a central role. They are similar to

approaches in category A but the descriptions are somehow narrower as they do not

include references to the transferable aspects of learning:


123

I try my best to ensure that the student has the best chance of achieving the

learning outcomes in the course, whilst enjoying and growing in their learning

experience. (Participant 22)

We keep our eyes and ears open to what new resources become available… as

not all resources suit all learning styles and circumstances. It’s the ability of

the teacher to adapt the resources to the student while having the complete

picture of integrated training and assessment… that is the hard part. It’s a

multi faceted and integrated process that needs to be adapted to each

individual student and situation. Not easy.

A. Focus on students’ meaningful learning and the applicable aspects of their learning: Design tailored learning activities to help students better understand the topic and see the relevance of their learning.

B. Focus on achieving individualised learning outcomes and versatility (developing complex skills, competencies, knowledge): Design learning plans tailored to meet students’ needs in order to help them develop specific skills, competencies and knowledge.

C. Focus on meeting course requirements so that students can complete the course: Design ‘study programs’ which allow students to achieve their desired qualifications.

D. Focus on flexibility and convenience for students (meeting practical needs): Design blended learning by using different technological tools to meet students’ practical needs (time, space, etc).

E. Focus on re-usability of resources: Designing BL by carefully organising and re-using available resources in order to save time and money.

Fig. 3 The hierarchy of categories for teachers’ approaches to design for blended learning


123

Our initial impetus for using blended delivery came from evaluation and

feedback from our students who indicated that the more traditional modes

were not meeting their needs. They wanted the opportunity to make choices,

and to customise their study…. (Participant 24)

Category C: focus on meeting course requirements so that students can completethe course

Category C marks a qualitative shift towards approaches focused less on design for

student learning and more on design to meet practical requirements. These

approaches to design focus on helping students to complete their course and gain the

desired qualifications (the underlying intentions are to help students to get

qualifications rather than to help them learn).

The ultimate goal is to design a program that allows the student to learn and

achieve their qualifications in a manner that best suits them. (Participant 30)

However, the teacher also has to ensure that the learners, having taken these

individual pathways, can all reach a similar destination i.e. that they are

deemed competent in the Elements and Units of Competency. (Participant 45)

Category D: focus on flexibility and convenience for students (meeting practicalneeds)

Category D includes responses that reflect approaches to design in a way that would

facilitate access and greater flexibility (in terms of space and time) for both students

and teachers. They mirror approaches to teaching motivated by facilitating flexible

learning (making learning practically possible) rather than enhancing the actual

learning experience for students.

I don’t see the blended classroom as being that different from the traditional

classroom. It does give more opportunity for material to be used to keep

students involved in their work and the facility for students to work at their

own pace. (Participant 60)

One course I am involved in is delivered entirely on-line. This enables

students from all over the state to participate. Asking them to attend face-to-

face workshops/classes may be quite beneficial (educationally), but there are

some significant cost factors for students. (…) Whilst this delivery method is

not blended, the reason for using this method (on-line), is because it suits the

students—they enrolled in it because of the delivery method, flexibility, etc.

(Participant 76)

Category E: focus on re-usability of resources

Finally, category E includes responses describing approaches to design orientated

towards re-using the available resources, mainly for economic and convenience

reasons. This category corresponds to the categories of conceptions of blended


123

learning and approaches to teaching centred on pragmatic considerations rather than

student learning.

I rely on resources that are already available to a large degree and as much as

possible…. I tend to use what is available within the organisation. Though I

know of other options I tend to wait until they are made available to me.

(Participant 23)

I have become ‘relaxed’ due to being time poor as I run a number of groups. I

use a large range of resources that are available and rely on whatever ones that

I have issued (and pre-planned)… With the large number of groups, ‘design’

has become a little random. (Participant 14)

Relationships between conceptions of blended learning, and approaches

to teaching and design of blended learning

The distribution of teachers’ responses across the five categories for all three

questions broadly follows a normal distribution, with the largest number of teachers’

responses falling into categories C and D and the least number of responses in

categories A and E (Table 1). In the case of teachers’ approaches to teaching, the

distribution pattern is slightly different, with most responses falling into categories

B and E.

Conceptions of blended learning and approaches to teaching

Our findings suggest that in the case of vocational education teachers, their

conceptions of blended learning are associated with their approaches to teaching for

blended learning. This is consistent with findings from phenomenographic research

on students’ conceptions and approaches to learning (e.g. Marton and Saljo 1984)

and also from higher education research on teachers’ conceptions and approaches

(e.g. Trigwell and Prosser 1996). Contingency tables (see Table 2) show that

teachers who reported conceptions of blended learning as being primarily about

delivery issues (fragmented), tended to report approaches to teaching which focused

on practical needs (n = 35). Teachers who tended to report conceptions of blended

learning which focused on student needs and lifelong goals (cohesive), and tended

to report approaches to teaching which focused on improving student learning

through tailored strategies (n = 10).

Approaches to teaching and approaches to design for learning in blended contexts

There are clear associations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and their

approaches to design for blended learning. Table 3 shows that the group of teachers

reporting student-centred approaches to teaching also tended to report approaches to

design for blended learning focused on student learning by building complex

knowledge and workplace transferable skills (n = 19). In contrast, teachers who

reported teacher-focused approaches to teaching oriented towards meeting practical


123

needs also tended to report approaches to design oriented towards meeting unit

requirements, convenience and re-usability of resources (n = 42).

Discussion and conclusion

A key finding of this study is that in the context of vocational education, teachers

develop qualitatively different conceptions of blended learning, as well as

qualitatively different approaches to both teaching and design for blended learning.

This complements similar findings from the university sector (e.g. Ellis et al. 2006)

Table 1 The distribution of responses across categories

Categories Labels Number of

teachers

Conceptions of blended

learning

A. Blended learning to empower students for lifelong

learning

6

B. Blended learning for students’ needs and learning goals 19

C. Combination of different ways of delivery to improve

students’ access to learning and meet their practical

needs

20

D. Aggregation of face-to-face and (mainly) online but also

other types of technologically driven delivery

30

E. Use of technological teaching tools only 4

Approaches to teaching for

blended learning

A. Teaching as an opportunity to enrich the learning

experience and to provide innovative ways to learn

through the blended context

9

B. Teaching as a way of providing learning tailored to

students’ needs based on a plan negotiated between

student and teacher through the blended context

17

C. Teaching with a focus on student support in relation to

the social and psychological aspects of the interaction as

well as technical aspects

14

D. Teaching with a focus on meeting students’ practical

needs for convenience in a blended context

15

E. Teaching with a focus on the process of providing

accurate and detailed online content which can be easily

accessed by students

20

Approaches to design for

blended learning contexts

A. Focus on students’ meaningful learning and the

applicable aspects of their learning

8

B. Focus on achieving individualised learning outcomes

and versatility (developing complex skills, competencies,

knowledge)

17

C. Focus on meeting course requirements so that students

can complete the course

22

D. Focus on flexibility and convenience for students

(meeting practical needs)

19

E. Focus on re-usability of resources 11


123

and from studies exploring face-to-face teaching experiences (e.g. Prosser et al.

1994; Trigwell et al. 1994; Prosser and Trigwell 1997). The qualitative variation

identified in the conceptions of blended learning in this study suggests that some

teachers tend to structure their understanding of what blended learning is, around

student learning, while others tend to view meeting students’ practical needs and

course requirements as the central focus and main benefit of using blended learning.

This pattern is reproduced in the case of approaches to teaching and design for

blended learning. Those descriptions of approaches which are more inclusive and

elaborated suggest a clear focus on using blended learning with the intention of

improving the quality of student learning. Less elaborated descriptions evoke

concerns with more practical aspects, which although necessary are adjuncts to the

learning process. In terms of approaches to teaching, our categorisation in terms of

student learning versus delivery/content is consistent with previous research that

found approaches grouped around a student-focused versus teacher-focused

continuum (see Trigwell et al. 1994). Our quantitative analyses reveal that the

close relationships among teachers’ conceptions and approaches in higher education

(Trigwell and Prosser 1996) are reproduced in vocational education when blended

learning is involved.

The finding that teachers’ conceptions tend to be related to their approaches to

teaching, suggests that teachers who see student learning as central when

implementing and using blended learning are more likely to employ strategies (in

both their teaching and design) that would ensure that deep and meaningful student

learning is supported. This outcome has practical implications as it suggests that it is

possible to achieve improvements in the quality of students’ learning experience by

challenging teachers’ conceptions of student learning in blended contexts.

Specifically, teachers’ approaches to both teaching and design can be improved

by addressing their understanding of what blended learning is.

In addition, the association between teachers’ approaches to teaching and their

approaches to design, suggests that improving the quality of one of these aspects

Table 2 Conceptions of

blended learning and

approaches to teaching in

blended learning contexts

Chi square = 16.40; phi = .45,

p \ .005; n = 75

Conceptions Total

Cohesive Fragmented

Approaches to teaching BL

Student focus 10 16 26

Teacher focus 14 35 49

Total 24 51 75

Table 3 Approaches to

teaching and approaches to

design of blended learning

Chi square = 35.98; phi = .67,

p \ .001; n = 75

Approaches to Teaching BL Total

Student focus Teacher focus

Approaches to designing BL

Learning outcomes focus 19 5 24

Resources focus 6 42 48

Total 25 47 75


123

could trigger an improvement in the quality of the other. One way of understanding

the relationships between the conceptions of blended learning, approaches to

teaching and design for blended learning, is shown in Fig. 4.

Figure 4 offers a visual representation of our findings, where lower categories

tend to be less reflective than higher categories. It is the higher categories that are

more likely to provide students with experiences of learning which would enable

them to cope better with the complexity of contemporary workplace demands.

Fig. 4 Associations amongst key aspects of the experience of teaching

Fig. 5 Balancing key aspects inthe teacher experience of design


123

One of the success factors for blended learning identified by Sharpe et al. (2006)

in the UK higher education system was the ‘‘use of blended learning as a driver for

transformative course redesign’’ (p. 26). This underscores the importance of

supporting teachers in adopting a reflective and student-focused approach, in which

analysis and evaluation of practice incorporating student learning needs and

reflection, are central. A key insight arising from the teacher’s experience is the

balance, as Fig. 5 illustrates, between meaningful learning and tailored activities,

and time constraints and the re-use of resources. If the balance achieved by the

teacher is tipped towards the left, the best interests of students are prioritised.

To conclude, the one most important implication of this research is that its

findings can be translated into tangible measures to improve teaching and,

subsequently, student learning. This type of analysis can be used to reconceptualise

how effective support can be provided to teachers engaged in blended learning. By

providing support for teachers to help them reconceptualise the idea of blended

learning—towards the more reflective dimensions of student learning and quality

learning outcomes, rather than predominantly towards practical dimensions—a

stronger focus on teaching and designing programs to enhance the quality of student

learning can be achieved. Our findings suggest that there is a need for teacher

guidance that takes a learner-centred focus, rather than a focus on the technicalities

and practicalities of blended learning.

Acknowledgements We are pleased to acknowledge the assistance for this project received from the

Australian Research Council in the form of a Linkage Grant: ‘Blended learning in schools, TAFE and

universities: experience, principles, patterns and practice’. The authors would also like to thank all the

NSW TAFE teachers who participated in the research.

References

Akerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher—variation in meaning. Studies inHigher Education, 28, 376–390.

Akerlind, G. S. (2004). A new dimension to understanding university teaching. Teaching in HigherEducation, 9, 363–376.

Akerlind, G. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. HigherEducation Research and Development, 24, 321–331.

Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research into

Higher Education and Open University Press.

Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into

students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 15,

231–244.

Bowden, J. A. (2005). Reflections on the phenomenographic research process. In J. A. Bowden & P.

Green (Eds.), Doing Developmental Phenomenography (pp. 11–31). Melbourne: RMIT University

Press.

Bruce C. S. (2003). Frameworks guiding the analysis: Applied to or derived from the data? In

Proceedings of the EARLI Experience and Understanding SIG (SIG10) Meeting. Canberra: Australia

National University.

Butler, J., & Brooker, R. (1998). The learning context within technical and further education colleges as

perceived by apprentices and their workplace supervisors. Journal of Vocational Education andTraining, 50, 79–96.

Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality

and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 501–512.


123

Draper, S. W., Brown, M. I., Henderson, F. P., & McAteer, E. (1996). Integrative evaluation: An

emerging role for classroom studies of CAL. Computers and Education, 26, 17–32.

Ellis, R. A., Steed, A. F., & Applebee, A. C. (2006). Teacher conceptions of blended learning, blended

teaching and associations with approaches to design. Australasian Journal of EducationalTechnology, 22, 312–335.

Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20–33.

Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography: A ‘good for nothing brother’ of phenomenology?

Outline of an analysis. Higher Education Research and Development, 16(2), 191–202.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconcepualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of

teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275.

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student

learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 58–73.

Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2002). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions

of good teaching. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge inhigher education (pp. 219–240). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Martin, E., & Balla, M. (1991). Conceptions of teaching and implications for learning. Research andDevelopment in Higher Education, 13, 298–304.

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. InstructionalScience, 10, 177–200.

Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The internationalencyclopedia of education (Vol. 8). New York: Pergamon.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.

Marton, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher EducationResearch and Development, 24, 335–348.

Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning. I. Outcome and process. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.

Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning. II. Outcome as a function of the

learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.

Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, et al. (Eds.), The experience oflearning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. (2009). Inquiry into the future for lifelong learning:Technological change. Leicester: NIACE.

NSW Department of Education and Training. (2008). TAFE NSW: Doing Business in the 21st Century.Consultation Outcomes and Development of Proposals. Report Prepared by the NSW Department of

Education and Training.

Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The ‘how’ and ‘what’ of learning physics. European Journal ofPsychology of Education, 4, 513–528.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Using phenomenography in the design of programs for teachers in

higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 16(1), 41–54.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in highereducation. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of

science teaching and learning. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217–231.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in

higher education. Educational Psychology, 25, 673–680.

Rushby, N. (1979). An introduction to educational computing. Beckenham: Croom Helm.

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by teachers. Higher Education, 24,

93–112.

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended

e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. The Higher Education Academy. http://oxford

brookes.academia.edu/GregBenfield/Papers/106036/The_undergraduate_experience_of_blended_

e-learning_a_review_of_UK_literature_and_practice_undertaken_for_the_Higher_Education_

Academy.

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

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies inHigher Education, 21, 275–284.


123

http://oxfordbrookes.academia.edu/GregBenfield/Papers/106036/The_undergraduate_experience_of_blended_e-learning_a_review_of_UK_literature_and_practice_undertaken_for_the_Higher_Education_Academy




Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory.

Educational Psychology Review, 16, 409–424.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year

university science. Higher Education, 27, 75–84.

Wood, K. (2000). The experience of learning to teach: Changing student teachers’ ways of understanding

teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 75–93.

Author Biographies

Ana-Maria Bliuc is a Lecturer in the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash University.

Between 2006 and 2011 she worked as a researcher at the Institute for Teaching and Learning, University

of Sydney.

Grant Casey is a new learning technologies specialist at the New South Wales Department of Education

and Training.

Agnieszka Bachfischer is a Research Associate in the Centre for Research on Computer supported

Learning and Cognition (CoCo), at the University of Sydney.

Peter Goodyear is a Professor of Education at the Faculty of Education and Social Work and the co-

director of Centre for Research on Computer supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo), University of

Sydney. He is also an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and a Senior Fellow of the Australian

Learning and Teaching Council.

Robert A. Ellis is an Associate Professor at the Institute for Teaching and Learning, and the director of

the Sydney eLearning and Learning Space, University of Sydney.


123

Documents

Blended learning in vocational education: teachers’ conceptions of blended learning and their approaches to teaching and design