Page 184 - BLENDED LEARNING

REWARD (Greenall, 2002) is not explicit regarding the nature of its learning theory,
simply stating that it ‘sets a new standard for computer-assisted language learning
methods’, with no indication as to what these may be. However, we can deduce from
the type of offline activities that REWARD (Greenall, 2002) employs, such as drag
and drop, gap fill, and matching activities, which provide immediate feedback and
are linear by design, that the approach is essentially behaviourist. (Behaviourism
is a theory of learning based upon the idea that all behaviours are acquired
through conditioning, for example Pavlov’s work with animals that resulted in what
became known as ‘classical conditioning’ or Skinner’s ‘operant conditioning’ which
acknowledged that the learner could ‘operate’ on the environment, for example by
pressing a lever to receive food [a reward]). This could be perceived as a weakness
in the blend as according to reviews of pedagogic literature constructivism is
currently the favoured model of learning. (In this theoretical approach it is believed
that learners construct their own knowledge or understanding based on their prior
experience rather than simply receiving it). If the centres had an internet connection
this could be addressed by incorporating online activities using email, chat, wikis
and podcasts for example, that encourage a more constructivist and collaborative
approach to language learning. However, even by allowing the learners to work in
pairs at the computer rather than individually whilst using REWARD (Greenall, 2002)
a degree of co-operation may take place resulting in a more constructivist approach.
Lessons learned

The blend that I have described evolved over a three-year period so the first lesson
that I learned is that effective blending can be a time-consuming process. Although
I believe that this was largely contextual, given the number of centres and their
widespread geographical distribution, the number of users (officer instructors/
teachers) involved in the redesign process, and my inexperience as a blended
learning course designer. Moreover, it was influenced by the fact that I employed
an iterative approach to the redesign process in that small changes were made,
implemented, and then evaluated before moving on to the next one. Most of these
changes were accompanied by meetings with the users (officer instructors/teachers)
as I believed it was vital to have their input in the decision making process, and/
or training for them, for example coursebook familiarisation. Beetham and Sharpe
(2007: 8) recognise this iterative approach and claim that ‘effective designs will
evolve only through cycles of practice, evaluation and reflection’.

Advice for blended learning course designers
Before embarking on a design or redesign process, identify your drivers for change,
that is ask yourself why change is necessary, what the driving factors behind it are
and what the limiting factors will be. In other words thoroughly acquaint yourself
with your context. There were four situational drivers for change in my context:
1. Goal direction – what the learners ultimately needed their English for.
2. Sustainability in terms of content stability (i.e. how long the course content would
be valid for), instructor fit (i.e. that the courses would be relatively straightforward
for unqualified officer instructors to teach) and cost effectiveness (i.e. that the
centres/courses would be inexpensive to run/maintain).

180 | A military blend A military blend | 181