English 895: Blog 3

 

Seung-Won, Yoon, and Lim Doo Hun. "Strategic Blending: A Conceptual Framework to
     Improve Learning and Performance." International Journal On E-Learning 6.3 (2007): 
     475-489. Computers & Applied Sciences Complete. Web. 30 May 2012.

The authors review models and definitions of blended learning and propose a conceptual framework for “strategic blending” called “Strategic Blended-Learning and Performance Solutions” (SBLPS).  They view strategic blending as a deliberate mix of delivery formats, including F2F and various technologies, to improve performance and learning outcomes, and this framework includes five phases.

The authors begin by reviewing the benefits, definitions, and models of blended learning according to prior research, and they introduce the five key ingredients of blended-learning design proposed by Carmen (2002): synchronous live events, self-paced learning, collaboration, assessment, and “performance-support” materials (476-477). The authors argue, along with Clark (1990), that “tools and technologies are the carrier of messages” and “distinctive categories of delivery media are important for guiding blending practices” (479).  They further argue that “blended models focusing on learning goals alone, without considering the impact on organizational performance, will not be sustainable, given the substantial amounts of cost and support required” (480).  In proposing their strategic blending framework, they assert that the crucial question is “how” and “for what” blending should occur (480).  The five phases of their framework include analyzing business and HR strategies; analyzing the core components of tasks, learners, and work environments; analyzing the climate and structures of the organization; identifying the readiness of the technology infrastructure; and lastly designing and implementing the strategically-blended course content (482).  They then briefly review the learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and situated learning and argue that these theories help determine the right mix of delivery media and indicate where to implement F2F interaction and various technologies to improve learning outcomes (483).  They go on to give some specific examples of instructional activities and technologies that could be employed in either F2F or online formats to achieve certain desired learning outcomes (485-486). Toward the end of their article, they discuss ways to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the hybrid delivery media through measuring both cost and instructional effectiveness of F2F and online components (486).

I found this article to be of very limited usefulness.  While they did include a few interesting points and examples, I felt like their framework was weak, vague, and nebulously defined.  I also felt that the abstract for this article was misleading, and I was surprised to discover that like the previous article I reviewed, this one also focused mostly on a business-oriented perspective.  Multiple times they use the phrase “performance solutions” instead of a more educational term like “learning outcomes,” and the first step in their strategic framework is to analyze “business goals and HR strategies.” Near the end, when discussing evaluation, they suggest asking about “the improvements in business performance, workflow efficiency, and job performance” (487).  I can’t say that I would recommend this article at all to someone in the field of composition.  I think there are many much more informative ones out there that include better, more up-to-date literature reviews and more specific strategies for developing effective hybrid instruction in college environments.  I think I will stick to composition journals for my last two reviews.