Page 101 - BLENDED LEARNING
P. 101

learning facilities is noted repeatedly. In addition, with the growing sophistication
          of participants – particularly on a course like IDLTM – there is an expectation that,
          to coin a phrase, course provision will have moved beyond ‘BL 1.0’ to ‘BL 2.0’.

          Secondly, the course material and examples must be directly relevant to management
          in an LTO. Since management textbooks rarely draw on examples in an educational
          service context, this has meant developing a coursebook based on the course, as well
          as assembling a stock of examples and cases from the world of the LTO manager, such
          as articles from the IATEFL Leadership and Management SIG Newsletter.
          Thirdly, as Dziuban, Hatman and Moskal (2004: 10) point out, with blended learning,
          ‘Just as students have to relearn how to learn, faculty have to relearn how to teach’,
          while in courses such as IDLTM, bringing together trainers from a range of different
          areas can create a forum for mentoring and the exchange of pedagogical practices
          and, as they also suggest, can ‘revitalize senior professors by refocusing them on the
          process of effective instruction’.
          Fourthly, because there is a high level of integration across the eight assessed course
          modules, it has proved beneficial to restrict the number of trainers to a maximum of
          four because of the close co-operation required – at least ideally – among trainers.
          With a small scale course like IDLTM such co-operation is feasible, but it is clear that
          in large-scale course provision, facilitating communication and co-operation across a
          teaching team becomes a more challenging and even more important requirement.
          Fifthly, the trainers themselves influence how, when and what participants contribute
          to online tasks and discussions. If trainers are perfunctory in the way they interact
          with participants, the latter are disinclined to contribute in depth. Indeed, Garrison
          and Vaughan (2007) advocate that teachers must provide ‘…ongoing facilitation,
          monitoring, and modelling of the course expectations for students throughout the
          entire semester’ (p. 141). What participants value is comments from trainers which
          are insightful, though not necessarily lengthy, and which are worth taking time off
          from their own busy schedules to read and reflect upon.
          Finally, although blended learning tuition involves a combination of elements,
          inputs and activities which are greatly facilitated by the means of a VLE, ultimately
          the success of blended learning depends on the imagination, understanding
          and commitment of the trainers, the effectiveness of well-organised and reliable
          administration and the wholehearted engagement of learners, prepared to
          participate in a course that may extend over a prolonged period.

          References
          Dziuban, CD, Hatman, JL and Moskal, PD (2004) Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Center
          for Applied Research Bulletin Issue 7. Available online at http://net.educause.edu/ir/
          library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf

          Garrison, D and Kanuka, H (2004) Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
          potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education 7: 95–105.





          98   |  Blended learning: The IDLTM experience                                                                             Blended learning: The IDLTM experience  |   99
   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106