Something lacking from the conversations around blended learning seems to be the penetration rates within corporations and higher education. Some recent research I’ve completed indicates roughly 55-85% of higher education institutions have blended learning offerings but just 5-11% of their total course offerings are blended (this may be under reported because schools don’t differentiate blended learning like they do straight f2f or e-learning). Among corporations, anecdotal findings indicate 77-85% organizations are creating blended learning programs with the majority offering 25% or less of their total course offerings in a blended format.
It’s like saying wine is good but blended wine is better because it’s cheaper, tastes better, etc. and then asking…so, how often do you buy the blended stuff? Oh, well I buy a bottle occasionally, really…I’m old school – I think the Cabernet is best. (I’m not doing a very good job of this but it’s all I could think of that was blended…) It seems we’re saying well, everybody’s doing it so let’s just move on. It’s old. It’s done. Whatever. We have such a unique opportunity to create better learning outcomes with blended learning.
I also think there is a lot of conversation about trying to define the term – old vs. new; face-to-face plus e-learning or any learning blended (methods and media). While definitions help us discuss and understand things, to me blended learning should have a definition based on the context of the organization… -Back-pedaling on e-learning (overuse) -Protection of face-to-face training -Better outcomes (we would hope this is #1) -Save money -Connectedness -Everything else Who cares what the definition is…
1 comment:
Tony-
Thanks for consolidating these links.
Something lacking from the conversations around blended learning seems to be the penetration rates within corporations and higher education. Some recent research I’ve completed indicates roughly 55-85% of higher education institutions have blended learning offerings but just 5-11% of their total course offerings are blended (this may be under reported because schools don’t differentiate blended learning like they do straight f2f or e-learning). Among corporations, anecdotal findings indicate 77-85% organizations are creating blended learning programs with the majority offering 25% or less of their total course offerings in a blended format.
It’s like saying wine is good but blended wine is better because it’s cheaper, tastes better, etc. and then asking…so, how often do you buy the blended stuff? Oh, well I buy a bottle occasionally, really…I’m old school – I think the Cabernet is best. (I’m not doing a very good job of this but it’s all I could think of that was blended…) It seems we’re saying well, everybody’s doing it so let’s just move on. It’s old. It’s done. Whatever. We have such a unique opportunity to create better learning outcomes with blended learning.
I also think there is a lot of conversation about trying to define the term – old vs. new; face-to-face plus e-learning or any learning blended (methods and media). While definitions help us discuss and understand things, to me blended learning should have a definition based on the context of the organization…
-Back-pedaling on e-learning (overuse)
-Protection of face-to-face training
-Better outcomes (we would hope this is #1)
-Save money
-Connectedness
-Everything else
Who cares what the definition is…
Post a Comment