Blended Learning and Teacher Preparation Programs

Duhaney, Devon C., International Journal of Instructional Media

INTRODUCTION Increasingly, variations of blended learning are being adopted at all levels of the educationsystem, as ins tructors explore different ways to facilitate learning, and learners becomemore engaged in the process within a media rich environment. This learning approach isrecognized in teacher preparation programs a s an effective way of ensuring a greater levelof facility with the integration of information communicatio n technology (ICT) across thecurriculum. It also serves as a comfortable way to help pre-service and inservice teachers,as they learn in a nonthreatening manner how to integrate technology within the digitalenvironment. Blended learning (also referred to as hybrid or flexible learning) has long been used in theclassroom in m ultiple ways. The everincreasing use of information technology has createdrenewed interest (Duhaney, 2004; Vaughan, 2007) i n this evolving concept (Qwston,Wideman, & Murphy, 2008; Graham, Allan, & Ure, 2005; Oliver & Trigw ell, 2005;Whitelock & Jells, 2003). Blended learning is considered to be any combination ofmethods, stra tegies, or modes used for teaching and learning. For example, the use of thetraditional face-toface approach in combination with some form of technology, eithersynchronously or asynchronously wo uld be considered "Blended" Learning (Duhaney,2004; Graham, 2006; McShane, 2010). Qwston, Wideman, and Murphy (2008) describe blended learning as a combination offace-toface experiences in which learners are colocated with online experiences,although not all learners are at the same location. Many classes in highe r education and atother levels of the education system are using some form of a blended learning appro ach.Students often engage in online activities participating in threaded discussions, accessingelectronic reading materials, and submitting completed assignments by using some coursemanagement tool or other Internet resources (e.g., BlackBoard, Mood le, blogs, wikis, etc.).Ross and Gage (2006) identify three different forms of blended learning in highered ucation: (a) Web-supplemented or technologyenhanced wherein the course issupplemented with online components; (b) hybrid or reduced face time which replacessome of the face-toface component with online learning activities; (c) and blendedprograms that offer students the flexibilit y to select traditional face-to-face classes,blended classes, or classes offered totally online.

Garrison and Vaughan (2008) posit that the fundamental belief of blended learning is thatface-toface oral communication and online written communication can be optimallyintegrated, thus facilitating a blending of the strengths of both areas into a unique learningexperience congruent with the context a nd intended educational purpose. In addition tothe online written communication component, everyone engaging in blended learning canmaximize the use of other appropriate digital elements, e.g., audio, vid eo, etc., many ofwhich are now easily accessible via the Internet. To effectively facilitate the use of blen dedlearning, however, Garrison and Vaughn (2008) believe that these key designassumptions must be c onsidered: (a) the thoughtful integration of face-toface and onlinelearning; (b) fundamentally rethinking the course design to optimize student engagemen t;and (c) restructuring and replacing traditional class contact hours. Facilitating theflexibility now needed in the learning environment can help reshape teacher preparationprograms to better assist teachers to be more effective in the classroom. Vaughan (2007)observes that the result of the combination of the o nline and face-toface classroomcomponents is, potentially, an educational environment highly conducive to studentlearn ing. Within this blended learning environment, the teacher must be morecollaborative in order to facilit ate a greater level of engagement by students in the teachingand learning process. TEACHER PREPARATION AND BLENDED LEARNING As the use of information communication technology (ICT) becomes a significant part ofour daily existen ce, blended learning can be considered an ideal approach to help inensuring that teachers and students are not only exposed to ICT, but are able to explorehow they may collaboratively use it in teaching and l earning while accommodatingindividual learning styles. Dziuban, Hartman, Juge, Moskal, and Sorg (2006 ) indicate thatthe blended learning format coalesces Web-based and face-toface instruction that holdsthe potential to transform both teaching and learning. This transformation is v ital becauseof the extensive use of technology throughout society and the need to rethink the way wete ach and learn. A considerable number of the students who now populate our classrooms in highereducation are widely described as the Net Generation, "the first generation to be bathed inbits;' according to Tapscott (2009, p. 17). These students assimilate technology, havinggrown up in a period when it is recognized as a part of the environment (Tapscott, 2009).Presnky (2001) describes them using the metaphor, "digital natives. " Garrison andVaughan (2008) observe that the Net Generation is able to move easily betweenface-toface and online experiences. In citing a Kvavik and Caruso survey of 2005,Garrison and Vaughan (2008) n ote that the Net Generation wanted technology to addconvenience and connection, but only had a mod erate preference for it as they valuedhuman interaction and were concerned that technology would red uce communication withtheir instructors and peers. Consequently, the use of the blended approach hel ps toprovide the convenience and connection desired during teaching and learning whileensuring that p articipants will be able to interact with their instructors and peers. Teachers/professors must accommodate technology (Tapscott, 2009). Prensky (2001)refers to these per sons with the metaphor, "digital immigrants." They continue to learnand adapt to an environment in wh ich the use of different technologies is a normal way oflife. Prensky (2009), however, believes that every

one has now become familiar with thedigital era and that the "digital natives" and "digital immigrant" di stinctions are no longerrelevant. He believes that consideration should now be given to a completely ne w concept -"digital wisdom". He regards this as twofold the wisdom arising from the use of digitaltechnology to access the use of cognitive power beyond our in nate capacity and wisdom inthe prudent use of technology to enhance our capabilities. This, therefore, warrants achange in how we prepare teachers to use technology to facilitate teaching and learningamon g students, many of whom are already adept at using a variety of technologies. The instruction and orientation in many teacher preparation programs are still gearedtoward those who must accommodate technology (Tapscott, 2009), even though manyteacher candidates, and the student s whom they will teach, can be counted among the NetGeneration. Teachers and students are no longer comfortable with learning in a passivesetting that is still largely textbased and heavily dependent on the lecture format thefoundation of the traditional classroom. Teacher candidates and students, with their vastexposure to a variety of technologies, desire an interactive or co llaborative learning setting.The blended learning approach, if planned and implemented well, can establi sh astudentcentered environment that will provide opportunities for more collaborationamong teacher candidates/ students and their peers, and between instructor and teachercandidates/students as they actively engag e in learning. This approach serves the purposesof ensuring connectivity, interaction, the capacity to eng age with the instructionalmaterial, and how students learn best while allowing for actual communicatio n with peersand instructors. Students principally like the blended learnig for its flexibility. With blended learning,students believe tha t they have more control over the pacing of the course and where theywish to engage in their learning. F aculty who have used the blended approach haveexpressed their satisfaction with (a) the enhanced inte raction that this format allows withstudents, (b) the increased student engagement, and (c) the flexibilit y which thisenvironment affords along with the opportunities for continuous improvement (Vaughan,20 07). Fostering this type of environment during teacher preparation makes teachercandidates more likely to use a variety of technologies and learn how to facilitate a learningenvironment in which students bec ome more actively engaged in learning using thesupport of the technology tools with which they are fa miliar. The emergence of Web 2.0, which is also referred to as the living or active web, theHypernet, or read wr ite web (Tapscott, 2009), is ideal for use with the blended learningapproach. The interactive nature of W eb 2.0--blogs, wikis, podcasts, virtual worlds, etc.-can result in the type of collaboration, which is significant in facilitating a dynamic andvibrant learning e nvironment. According to Solomon and Schrum (2007), Web 2.0 allowsa number of users to participate by editing, commenting, and improving a documentcollaboratively rather than working alone. This is reg arded as critical for both teachercandidates and students. Teacher preparation programs, therefore, will need to help teacher candidates learn howthey may integ rate the Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning. Although many may bequite fluent in using these tools t hey may not necessarily know how to use them effectivelyand efficiently for teaching and learning. As T

homas (2011) indicates, students most oftenuse these tools in their social lives for communication purp oses and rarely in educationalcontexts. The students perceive a conflict with the use of Web 2.0 technol ogies in theirsocial and educational lives, and would like them to remain separate rather thanintertwine d (Thomas, 2011). Because of the students, and, by extension, teacher candidates' perceptions of the use ofICT, it is impera tive that particular focus is given to how they are introduced to theintegration of these tools in the educ ational setting. The blended approach might thereforebe an appropriate medium to help facilitate this e xposure to these tools being used in boththe social and educational contexts. To help teacher candidate s integrate the technology inteaching and learning, partnerships are often created with schools and scho ol districts inwhich university faculty and K12 teachers collaborate. In some cases, teacher candidatesand their cooperating teachers work with and mentor elementary, middle and/ or highschool students, (see Serhan, 2009; Smolin, Lawless, & Radinsk y, 2009; Singer & Maher,2007; Dexter, Doering, & Riedel, 2006). These partnerships help university facul ty, whoprepare teacher candidates, become more conversant with the changing role of teachers,how to facilitate learning in an information communication technology (ICT) richenvironment, and how to bette r use a blended approach in learning. Teacher candidateslearn also how they can integrate technology w hile blending the traditional teachingpractices with their use of familiar technology for teaching and lear ning. BLENDED LEARNING AND CLINICAL EXPERIENCES Clinical practices--field experiences or observations and student teaching-are criticalaspects of the teacher preparation program. During these phases of the program, teachercan didates are placed in classroom settings, where they observe and/or participate inteacher, school, and cl assroom instructional practices. For student teaching, the teachercandidate is placed in a classroom whe re he/she spends time practicing teaching andlearning a whole range of responsibilities which are expec ted of the classroom teacher.Student teaching is conducted under the guidance of university faculty, clin ical facultysupervisor (often retired or veteran teachers), and cooperating or mentor teachers, inwhose c lassrooms the activities are completed. These clinical activities provide idealopportunities for employing a blended learning approach from which university faculty,cooperating or mentor teacher, and the teac her candidate, can benefit. They also offeropportunities for strengthening the school and university part nerships that are crucial forthe success of these activities. In many teacher preparation programs, field experiences run concurrently with coursessuch as curriculu m and assessment and methodology, while student teaching often occursat the end of the program. Fiel d experiences include instructional observations, workingwith the mentor teacher on assessment of stu dent learning, interviewing teachers, workingwith mentor teacher to plan and present lessons, attendin g school and/or school districtevents, among other activities (Reynolds & Greiner, 2006). These field exp erienceplacements occur within classrooms where the teacher candidates spend numerous hoursof obs ervation. Increasingly, the demand on schools to accommodate teacher candidatesfor clinical practice is presenting a challenge in securing appropriate and adequateplacements. In some schools, teachers are often reluctant to either accommodate studentsfor fieldwork or give up their classes to teacher candidat

es because of test preparation,highstakes testing pressure, and the increasing demands of teacher evaluation.Additionally, the recent calls t o transform teacher preparation through clinical practice(NCATE, 2010) will result in the need for more, and possibly longer, placements.Consequently, the need for student teaching placements in schools will become moreurgent. The blended learning format can be adopted and used in enabling teacher candidates tofulfill the field e xperience or observation while reducing the number of hours andindividuals visiting the physical classro om. The use of any readily available onlinevideoconferencing tool (e.g., Skype, ooVoo, Elluminate) can fa cilitate some of the fieldexperience or observation hours. For these observations, which would be done as a part ofthe university class, teacher candidates, along with their university instructor, wouldobserve a class in session, from a distance, and then followup with a discussion about thelesson presented with the classroom teacher where possible (Duhaney & Young, 2011).This could also involve having small teams (2 or 3 teacher candidates) working with aclassr oom teacher to plan and implement a lesson which will be observed and critiqued bypeers, university fa culty, and the classroom teacher. A partnership established beforehandbetween the university and the s chool/school district will be extremely important inensuring that these collaborative activities can be po ssible (see Simpson, 2006). Theestablishment of partnerships which will allow teacher candidates to be i n the classroom,or be able to observe a class via videoconferencing, will be critical in ensuring adequate andappropriate clinical practice. Again, with the recent reports calling for the transformation ofteacher preparation through clinical practice (NCATE, 2010), partnerships such as thesewill become imperative a nd the blended learning approach can be used to facilitate theseactivities. CONCLUSION The use of a bended learning approach that includes information communicationtechnology (ICT) is bec oming popular in classrooms at all levels. The use of ICT inteaching and learning also continues to be a m ajor concern for teacher educators, teachers,students, and the wider community. Their integration in th e teaching and learningenvironment will not be fully realized, however, until teacher educators make th e use ofthese tools across the curriculum, a pivotal part of teacher preparation programs. Blendedlearni ng is an ideal approach that can be used to make this possible. By embracing the useof blended learning, teacher preparation programs help teacher candidates learn how totap into their students' interests an d familiarity with a range of informationcommunication technology to encourage and facilitate an engag ing learning environment,both virtually and physically. Direct Reprint Requests to: Devon C. Duhaney Department of Secondary Education State University of New York at New Paltz Hawk Drive

New Paltz, New York 12561 E-mail: duhaneyd@newpaltz.edu REFERENCES Dexter, S., Doering, A. H., & Riedel, E. S. (2006). Content area specific technologyintegration: A model for educating teachers. Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation, 14(2), 325-345. Duhaney, D. C. & Young, A. E. (2011). Retooling teacher preparation: Focus oneducational technology. Jo urnal of the University College of the Cayman Islands, 5, 75-89. Duhaney, D. C. (2004). Blended learning in education, training, and development.Performance Improve ment, 43(8), 35-38. Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning entersthe mainstream. I n C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.). The handbook of blended learning:Globalperspectives, local designs (pp. 195-208). San Francisco: Pfeiffer/Wiley. Garrison, D. R. & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education:Framework, principles, an d guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definitions, current trends, and futuredirections. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.). The handbook of blended learning: Globalperspectives, local designs (pp. 321). San Francisco: Pfeiffer/Wiley. Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and challenges of blended learningenvironments. In M . KhosrowPour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science andTechnology (pp. 253259). Hershey, PA: Idea Group In c. McShane, K. (2010). Blended teaching and learning: Balancing control and uncertainty inuniversity teach ing and learning. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Societyfor Information Technology & Te acher Education International Conference 2010 (pp.722729). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.edithb.org/p/33431. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2010). Transformingteacher educatio n through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effectiveteachers (Report of the Blue Ribbon P anel on clinical preparation and partnerships forimproved student learning). Wasnington, DC: NCATE Oliver, M., & TrigweU, K. (2005). Can 'blended learning' be redeemed? E-learning, 2(1),1726. Owston, R., Wideman, H., & Murphy, J. (2008). Blended learning for professionaldevelopment in dive rse urban settings: Findings from three project evaluations. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of th e American Educational Research Association, NewYork City. Retrieved September 19, 2009. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).

Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives todigital wisdom. Innov ate, (5)3. Retrieved fromhttp://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705 Reynolds, T. & Grenier, C. (2006). Integrated field experiences in online teachereducation. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.). The handbook of blended learning:. Global perspectives,local designs (pp. 2 09-220). San Francisco: Pfeiffer/Wiley. Ross, B. & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCTand our custom ers in higher education. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.). Thehandbook of blended learning: Global per spectives, local designs (pp. 155-168). SanFrancisco: Pfeiffer/Wiley. Serhan, D. (2009). Preparing preservice teachers for computer technology integration.International Journal of Instructional media, 36(4), 439-447. Simpson, M. (2006). Field experience in distance delivered initial teacher educationprogrammes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 241-254. Singer, J. & Maher, M. A. (2007). Preservice teachers and technology integration:Rethinking traditional r oles. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18: 955-984. Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, Oregon:International Societ y for Technology in Education. Smolin, L. I., Lawless, K. A. & Radinsky, J. (2005). The technology mentor model:Infusing technology into student teaching placements. In C. Vrasidas & G. V. Glass (Eds.).Preparing Teachers to Teach with Techn ology, (pp. 257-269). Greenwich, CT: InformationAge Publishing. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world.New York: McGra w-Hill. Thomas, M. (2011). Technology, education, and the discourse of digital natives: Betweenevangelists and dissenters. In M. Thomas(Ed.). Deconstructing digital natives: Youngpeople, technology and the new liter acies. London: Routledge. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. InternationalJournal on ELearning, 6(1), 81-94. Whitelock, D. & Jells, A. (2003) Editorial: Journal of Educational Media special issue onblended learning, J ournal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), pp. 99-100. DR. DEVON C. DUHANEY State University of New York at New Paltz

Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com Publication information: Article title: Blended Learning and Teacher Preparation Programs. Contributors: Duhaney, Devon C. - Author. Journal title: International Journal of Instructional Media. Volume: 39. Issue: 3 Publication date: Summer 2012. Page number: 197+. 1999 Westwood Press, Inc. COPYRIGHT 2012 Gale Group. Blended Learning and TeacherPreparation Programs

Duhaney, Devon C., International Journal of Instructional Media

INTRODUCTION Increasingly, variations of blended learning are being adopted at all levels of the educationsystem, as ins tructors explore different ways to facilitate learning, and learners becomemore engaged in the process within a media rich environment. This learning approach isrecognized in teacher preparation programs a s an effective way of ensuring a greater levelof facility with the integration of information communicatio n technology (ICT) across thecurriculum. It also serves as a comfortable way to help pre-service and inservice teachers,as they learn in a nonthreatening manner how to integrate technology within the digitalenvironment. Blended learning (also referred to as hybrid or flexible learning) has long been used in theclassroom in m ultiple ways. The everincreasing use of information technology has createdrenewed interest (Duhaney, 2004; Vaughan, 2007) i n this evolving concept (Qwston,Wideman, & Murphy, 2008; Graham, Allan, & Ure, 2005; Oliver & Trigw ell, 2005;Whitelock & Jells, 2003). Blended learning is considered to be any combination ofmethods, stra tegies, or modes used for teaching and learning. For example, the use of thetraditional face-toface approach in combination with some form of technology, eithersynchronously or asynchronously wo uld be considered "Blended" Learning (Duhaney,2004; Graham, 2006; McShane, 2010). Qwston, Wideman, and Murphy (2008) describe blended learning as a combination offace-toface experiences in which learners are colocated with online experiences,although not all learners are at the same location. Many classes in highe r education and atother levels of the education system are using some form of a blended learning appro ach.Students often engage in online activities participating in threaded discussions, accessingelectronic reading materials, and submitting completed assignments by using some coursemanagement tool or other Internet resources (e.g., BlackBoard, Mood le, blogs, wikis, etc.).Ross and Gage (2006) identify three different forms of blended learning in highered ucation: (a) Web-supplemented or technology-

enhanced wherein the course issupplemented with online components; (b) hybrid or reduced face time which replacessome of the face-toface component with online learning activities; (c) and blendedprograms that offer students the flexibilit y to select traditional face-to-face classes,blended classes, or classes offered totally online. Garrison and Vaughan (2008) posit that the fundamental belief of blended learning is thatface-toface oral communication and online written communication can be optimallyintegrated, thus facilitating a blending of the strengths of both areas into a unique learningexperience congruent with the context a nd intended educational purpose. In addition tothe online written communication component, everyone engaging in blended learning canmaximize the use of other appropriate digital elements, e.g., audio, vid eo, etc., many ofwhich are now easily accessible via the Internet. To effectively facilitate the use of blen dedlearning, however, Garrison and Vaughn (2008) believe that these key designassumptions must be c onsidered: (a) the thoughtful integration of face-toface and onlinelearning; (b) fundamentally rethinking the course design to optimize student engagemen t;and (c) restructuring and replacing traditional class contact hours. Facilitating theflexibility now needed in the learning environment can help reshape teacher preparationprograms to better assist teachers to be more effective in the classroom. Vaughan (2007)observes that the result of the combination of the o nline and face-toface classroomcomponents is, potentially, an educational environment highly conducive to studentlearn ing. Within this blended learning environment, the teacher must be morecollaborative in order to facilit ate a greater level of engagement by students in the teachingand learning process. TEACHER PREPARATION AND BLENDED LEARNING As the use of information communication technology (ICT) becomes a significant part ofour daily existen ce, blended learning can be considered an ideal approach to help inensuring that teachers and students are not only exposed to ICT, but are able to explorehow they may collaboratively use it in teaching and l earning while accommodatingindividual learning styles. Dziuban, Hartman, Juge, Moskal, and Sorg (2006 ) indicate thatthe blended learning format coalesces Web-based and face-toface instruction that holdsthe potential to transform both teaching and learning. This transformation is v ital becauseof the extensive use of technology throughout society and the need to rethink the way wete ach and learn. A considerable number of the students who now populate our classrooms in highereducation are widely described as the Net Generation, "the first generation to be bathed inbits;' according to Tapscott (2009, p. 17). These students assimilate technology, havinggrown up in a period when it is recognized as a part of the environment (Tapscott, 2009).Presnky (2001) describes them using the metaphor, "digital natives. " Garrison andVaughan (2008) observe that the Net Generation is able to move easily betweenface-toface and online experiences. In citing a Kvavik and Caruso survey of 2005,Garrison and Vaughan (2008) n ote that the Net Generation wanted technology to addconvenience and connection, but only had a mod erate preference for it as they valuedhuman interaction and were concerned that technology would red uce communication withtheir instructors and peers. Consequently, the use of the blended approach hel

ps toprovide the convenience and connection desired during teaching and learning whileensuring that p articipants will be able to interact with their instructors and peers. Teachers/professors must accommodate technology (Tapscott, 2009). Prensky (2001)refers to these per sons with the metaphor, "digital immigrants." They continue to learnand adapt to an environment in wh ich the use of different technologies is a normal way oflife. Prensky (2009), however, believes that every one has now become familiar with thedigital era and that the "digital natives" and "digital immigrant" di stinctions are no longerrelevant. He believes that consideration should now be given to a completely ne w concept -"digital wisdom". He regards this as twofold the wisdom arising from the use of digitaltechnology to access the use of cognitive power beyond our in nate capacity and wisdom inthe prudent use of technology to enhance our capabilities. This, therefore, warrants achange in how we prepare teachers to use technology to facilitate teaching and learningamon g students, many of whom are already adept at using a variety of technologies. The instruction and orientation in many teacher preparation programs are still gearedtoward those who must accommodate technology (Tapscott, 2009), even though manyteacher candidates, and the student s whom they will teach, can be counted among the NetGeneration. Teachers and students are no longer comfortable with learning in a passivesetting that is still largely textbased and heavily dependent on the lecture format thefoundation of the traditional classroom. Teacher candidates and students, with their vastexposure to a variety of technologies, desire an interactive or co llaborative learning setting.The blended learning approach, if planned and implemented well, can establi sh astudentcentered environment that will provide opportunities for more collaborationamong teacher candidates/ students and their peers, and between instructor and teachercandidates/students as they actively engag e in learning. This approach serves the purposesof ensuring connectivity, interaction, the capacity to eng age with the instructionalmaterial, and how students learn best while allowing for actual communicatio n with peersand instructors. Students principally like the blended learnig for its flexibility. With blended learning,students believe tha t they have more control over the pacing of the course and where theywish to engage in their learning. F aculty who have used the blended approach haveexpressed their satisfaction with (a) the enhanced inte raction that this format allows withstudents, (b) the increased student engagement, and (c) the flexibilit y which thisenvironment affords along with the opportunities for continuous improvement (Vaughan,20 07). Fostering this type of environment during teacher preparation makes teachercandidates more likely to use a variety of technologies and learn how to facilitate a learningenvironment in which students bec ome more actively engaged in learning using thesupport of the technology tools with which they are fa miliar. The emergence of Web 2.0, which is also referred to as the living or active web, theHypernet, or read wr ite web (Tapscott, 2009), is ideal for use with the blended learningapproach. The interactive nature of W eb 2.0--blogs, wikis, podcasts, virtual worlds, etc.-can result in the type of collaboration, which is significant in facilitating a dynamic andvibrant learning e nvironment. According to Solomon and Schrum (2007), Web 2.0 allowsa number of users to participate

by editing, commenting, and improving a documentcollaboratively rather than working alone. This is reg arded as critical for both teachercandidates and students. Teacher preparation programs, therefore, will need to help teacher candidates learn howthey may integ rate the Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning. Although many may bequite fluent in using these tools t hey may not necessarily know how to use them effectivelyand efficiently for teaching and learning. As T homas (2011) indicates, students most oftenuse these tools in their social lives for communication purp oses and rarely in educationalcontexts. The students perceive a conflict with the use of Web 2.0 technol ogies in theirsocial and educational lives, and would like them to remain separate rather thanintertwine d (Thomas, 2011). Because of the students, and, by extension, teacher candidates' perceptions of the use ofICT, it is impera tive that particular focus is given to how they are introduced to theintegration of these tools in the educ ational setting. The blended approach might thereforebe an appropriate medium to help facilitate this e xposure to these tools being used in boththe social and educational contexts. To help teacher candidate s integrate the technology inteaching and learning, partnerships are often created with schools and scho ol districts inwhich university faculty and K12 teachers collaborate. In some cases, teacher candidatesand their cooperating teachers work with and mentor elementary, middle and/ or highschool students, (see Serhan, 2009; Smolin, Lawless, & Radinsk y, 2009; Singer & Maher,2007; Dexter, Doering, & Riedel, 2006). These partnerships help university facul ty, whoprepare teacher candidates, become more conversant with the changing role of teachers,how to facilitate learning in an information communication technology (ICT) richenvironment, and how to bette r use a blended approach in learning. Teacher candidateslearn also how they can integrate technology w hile blending the traditional teachingpractices with their use of familiar technology for teaching and lear ning

Blended Learning: Issues, Benefits and Challenges

O'Connor, Christine, Mortimer, Dennis, Bond, Sue, International Journal of EmploymentStudies

INTRODUCTION The advent of new educational technologies such as computer programs and the ability todeliver course content online, combined with changing student demographics and achanging and complex business environment, has led to the development of newapproaches to student t eaching and learning (Bonk & Graham, 2006). In some cases these new technologies have resulted in the entire subject content beingdelivered online. In other cases the new approaches replace or transform some of thesubject delivery, which is 'blended' with the traditional delivery of other parts of the subje ctcontent. This 'blended learning' approach is the subject of this paper. With blen dedlearning, new and different pressures are placed on academic staff used to th e traditional'talk and chalk' approach (de Freitas & Oliver, 2006). These include int egrating online(usually generic) material with the classroom components, a reduction in teac hingflexibility, and an increased administrative load and perception that staff are available at allhours. This paper discusses some of the advantages of using blended learning, and also d rawsattention to some of the potential problems and pitfalls that need to be addr essed ifblended learning is to be used successfully. It argues that while blended le arning has thepotential to improve student learning, it is not a simple panacea for all future learningstrategies. WHAT IS BLENDED LEARNING?

Blended learning as a concept involves the use of new educational methodologies andpractices which emphasise student centred active learning (de Freitas & Olive r, 2005), inconjunction with more traditional approaches which emphasise a teac her centredapproach which assumes passive learning by students. Generally, blended learning is defined as learning systems combining face-tofaceinstruction with technology mediated instruction (Bonk & Graham, 2006; Dris coll, 2007;So & Bonk, 2010; Le Rossignol, 2009; HoicBozic, Mornar & Boticki, 2009; Collopy &Arnold, 2009). For example, Rovai and Jor dan (2004) note that according to Collis andMoonen (2001), blended learning is a hybrid of traditional face-to-face and onlinelearning so that instruction occurs both in the classroom and online, and where theonline component becomes a natural extension of traditional classroom learning. Driscoll (2007) takes a broader view, arguing that blended learning refers to four differentconcepts: * To combine or mix modes of webbased technology (e.g. live virtual classroom,selfpaced instruction, collaborative learning, streaming video, audio, and text) toacco mplish an educational goal. * To combine various pedagogical approaches (e.g. constructivism, behaviourism, cognitivism) to produce an optimal learning outcome with or without instructiona ltechnology. * To combine any form of instructional technology (e.g. videotape, CD-ROM, webbasedtraining, film) with face-to-face instructor-led training. * To mix or combine instructional technology with actual job tasks in order to crea te anharmonious effect of learning and working. So, while most authors see blended learning as relying on the development of we b basedand elearning technologies, Driscoll acknowledges that blended learning does notneces

sarily involve the use of new instructional technologies. Further, the use ofsimulat ions, role plays and case studies, all of which are studentcentred active learningmethodologies, began to be used at least as early as the 19 50s (Heuer, 2010). Blended learning is thus a flexible approach to course design that supports the ble nding ofdifferent times and places for learning, offering some of the conveniences of fully on-linecourses without the complete loss of face-toface contact. The result is potentially a morerobust educational experience than e ither traditional or fully on-line learning can offer. THE GROWTH IN BLENDED LEARNING Rather than blended learning 'requiring' the use of webbased technologies, it can beargued that the significant increase in the number an d availability of computer andwebbased learning applications constitutes one of the reasons to explain the growth i n theuse of blended learning over the last ten to fifteen years. Associated with the growth of webbased applications generally, not just in relation tolearning methodologies, it can be argued that there has been a change in the way in whichnew students approac h their learning, and that this change is another reason for thegrowth in the use o f blended learning. Learning styles of 'net generation' learners aredifferent to the style of the 'baby boomers'. The 'neomillennial' learning style of today'sgeneratio n is based on digital media mastery and is therefore receptive to a 'community ofl earning' which includes use of multiple media and simulationbased virtual settings and abalance among experiential learning, guided mentorin g and collective reflection (Jefferies& Hyde, 2010; Le Rossiignol, 2009, citing the w orks of Tapscott, 1998; and Dede, 2005). Research conducted since January 2007 by, among other organisations, Educause( Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005), and ECAR (Caruso & Salway, 2007) has highlighted tha t thegeneration of 18 year olds entering higher education as undergraduates at th e end of thefirst decade of the 21st century is both more technically knowledgeab

le and confident thanany previous intake of students and that they generally have very high expectations ofwhat technology might be available to them and how th ey could use it to access theirlearning. For these students the presence of a mana ged learning environment (MLE) orcourse management system in some part at le ast is now an expectation rather than anaddition for their undergraduate learning . This is illustrated through a comment by a finalyear Humanities student at the U niversity of Hertfordshire (Jefferies & Hyde, 2010) whosaid: My sixth form had an e-learning system, which had much better functionality than the version of Blackboard[TM] used at X university where my friend studied. Ellis and Goodyear make a similar point when they assert that "the use of ICT in hi ghereducation makes it possible for universities to offer students much more flexi ble access tolearning resources ... but it also encourages students to expect such f lexibility". (Ellis &Goodyear, 2010, p. 2). So students' access to technology and their 'mediahabits' have been changing rapidly inrecent years, (e.g. Conole, de Laat, Dillon & D arby, 2006). However, as Sharpe, Beetham,Benfield, de Cicco and Lessner (2009) f rom the wider research group in the JISC LXP2research have commented "the con cept of elearning as course related technologyprovided by an institution provides only a na rrow perspective of the technology use oflearners today". There is also the pressure in recent years on universities in Australia and elsewher e toincrease participation and widen access to higher education. This has led univ ersities torespond to this agenda through the use of blended learning initiatives. I n the case ofwidening participation and access, blended learning initiatives includ e those targeted atbasic academic skills such as essay writing, and the use of targe ted support for studentswho need additional support in these skills (Jones & Lau, 2010).

Finally, the growth in blended learning can also be partly attributed to issues arisi ng fromthe early versions of elearning where computer technologies were used mainly to improvethe distributi on of learning content. This includes the simple use of systems such asBlackboard or Moodle for the distribution of lecture slides in an otherwise 'chalk and talk'envi ronment, or the simple replacement of lectures through complete online delivery.Both have led to the major problem of high student dropout rates (H oic-Bozic, et al,2009). There are therefore a variety of reasons for the rapidly increasingly popularisation ofblended learning as a means of effectively addressing the issues facing contem poraryeducators. BENEFITS OF, AND ISSUES IN, BLENDED LEARNING Most of the literature is generally positive in reviewing the outcomes of blended l earningsituations. For example, Bligh (2000, p. 20), reviewing the educational and psychologicalresearch evidence on the benefits of discussion, concludes "There is reason to think thatrole play, games and similar methods with high activity and pe rsonal involvement may beequally, or even more, effective than discussion." Schaber, Wilcox, Whiteside, Marsh and Brooks (2010) conducted a study which co mparedthe difference between traditional and blended learning curriculum. They found that 25classroom students and 64 blended learning students indicated that while both formatsincreased students' perceived understanding of topics related t o affective learning, theblended learning group perceived a significantly greater u nderstanding in four affectivetopic areas. Furthermore, blended learning students cited reading, on-line discussions,and unstructured out-ofclassroom discussions as contributing to their learningsignificantly more than the classroom group. In relation to the use of simulations in blended learning, Romme (2003) argues th at incontrast to traditional teaching methods, business simulations bridge the gap between theclassroom and the world of reallife business decision making through experientiallearning experiences in which st

udents design, implement, and control business strategies.In sophisticated simula tions, students think in strategic ways, solve complex problems,and integrate kno wledge across business functions. In the microworlds created bybusiness simulati ons, students can better understand the interactive effects ofenvironment, comp etitors, and employees. De Freitas (2006) found that games andsimulations suppo rt differentiated learner groups including underserved learners, learnerswith skills needs (e.g. numeracy and literacy) and informal learners seeking to learn fromex periences, as well as supporting collaborative learning practices. Furthermore, the majority of learners and tutors using games and simulations involved in the study did findvalue in using these tools as part of their wider learning and teaching prac tices. Xu andYang (2010) explored the factors contributing to student learning in t he context ofbusiness simulations. Their results suggest that social interaction and psychological safetyhad a positive impact on knowledge development in student groups, and that thissynergistic knowledge development enabled students to for m complex mental models. Blended learning is also argued to be more effective than simply using online learningalone. Collopy and Arnold (2009) explore differences in undergraduat e teaching students'experiences with a curriculum subject presented through online only and two blendedlearning modes. Students in both blended modes report ed significantly higher levels oflearning than those in the online only group. Though they reported lower levels oflearning, the online only group did not perceive the content to be more complex. Inaddition, the g roups did not differ significantly in the time they took to complete thecurriculum, suggesting that the online only group felt they learned less despite a similaramount of effort. Interesting ly, though the two blended groups differed in the amount offace-toface class time devoted to discussing or clarifying points in the curriculum, theywe re similar in their reported levels of content learned. The implication is that thefac e-toface component was important for students to feel competent with the content o fthe course. Students who worked completely alone in the on-

line space may have felt moreisolated and alone while engaging and working thro ugh the curriculum of the course. Further, it has also been argued that blended learning can reduce class time. Dziu ban andMoskal (2001) reported that blended courses at the University of Central Florida replacedface-to-face class time with on-line learning so that a threehour course occupied only onehour of actual face-to-face classroom time. However, various researchers have also raised a number of potential issues which alsoneed to be considered. Wang (2010) found that while implementation of ICT tools inblended learning does promote social interaction among students and thei r engagement, itdoes not automatically facilitate students in their adoption of acti ve learning strategies.Aldrich (2006) found that the importance of the design aspe cts of blended learningapproaches is fundamental to supporting collaborative lear ning. Deciding when to usehuman interaction or technologymediated interaction is a complex decision involvingseveral design considerations. Aldrich also highlighted that the coordination betweenface-to-face and online interaction is a critical factor affecting collaborative learningprocesses. In fact, Voos (2003) suggests that it is unlikely that the blendedness makes thedifference in such courses, but rather the fundamental reconsideration of course design inlig ht of new instructional and media choices and the learning strengths and limitatio ns ofeach. Similarly, Shih (2010) examined blended learning using videobased blogs. The results ofthe study showed that this model could contribute to le arning effectiveness and studentsatisfaction if the blended model is implemented with sufficiently supportive equipmentand course plans. Most importantly, peer a nd instructors' feedback and the blogcharacteristics like free access, ease of revisi on, and interesting material for learning weremajor factors that enhanced studen ts' learning satisfaction by motivating them to learneffectively. This suggests that a new simulation or other online activity cannot simply be inserted intothe subject content. Rather, the full cur riculum will need to be reviewed and harmonisedwith the nontraditional content if the full benefits of blended learning are to be achieved.

BLENDED LEARNING IN PRACTICE The paper will now assess the outcomes from the use of blended learning in three casestudies in which the authors were involved. One case involves the design of a subjectoffered across all business degrees as a common subject. The other two in volvesimulations as a core part of the curriculum and assessment. Case Study One--Business Academic Skills The first example of blended learning is a core first year subject called Business Ac ademicSkills offered in the Bachelor of Business and Commerce at a major metrop olitanuniversity. This subject enrolled over 4,000 students per year. A complicatin g factor wasthat the subject was taught over three campuses with more than 30 s taff membersinvolved, mostly casuals. The subject was initially run totally online, with the use of a combination of modules fromthe US based 'My WritingLab', together with weekly exercises and quizzes developedspecifically for the subject and posted on-line. The only 'face-toface' contact was a smallnumber of optional remedial workshops for students wh o had poor progressive results.These were poorly attended, with the vast bulk of s tudents completing the subject totallyonline. Student feedback results were very poor and, as a result, in the following se mesterthe remedial workshops became compulsory for students who were identif ied as being 'atrisk' following a formative piece of assessment. However, not all st udents devoted enoughtime to the formative exercise as no marks were allocated to it, and many were resentful atbeing singled out and having to attend the reme dial classes. Student feedback results continued to be poor, so the online content was graduall yreduced and more emphasis made of face-to-face contact. However, the face-tofacecontact was initially achieved simply by using the content from the remedial workshopsand making these classes compulsory for all students. This created several new problems. Firstly, many students became resentful at ha ving toattend as the content was the same as the former remedial classes and the

y thought theworkshops were too simplistic. In a subsequent semester the conten t was expanded tocater for better students, but this in turn caused problems for t he less able students (therewas a big range in ability in the student cohort). Secon dly, as the face-toface content onlyrelated to one part of the subject, the tutors taking the face-toface workshops faceddifficulty in that they were often alienated from the online content and considered it akinto a separate course. Subsequently, the online content was gradually aligned as much aspossible with the workshops. As noted, on-line content focus was via MyWritingLab plus online weekly quizzes basedon content posted online or in the textbook. MyWritingLab is an online programdeveloped by Pearson Education designed to help students with gra mmar, punctuationand writing (for example, correct sentence structure). MyWritingLab brought its own set of issues. Many technical and other issues from theperspective of both students and staff have been encountered and have had t o be resolvedsuch as: * It was a United States program with subsequent issues such as US spelling, gram mar andexamples. * There were mistakes with some of the content. * In one semester, there were two sources of marks (what academics downloade d and whatPearson downloaded) which did not exactly align. * There were technical difficulties for students; for example, in some modules, stu dentshad to hover their mouse in a certain way before they could answer the que stion * There were technical difficulties for staff in enrolling students into the course an didentifying them. For example, only names could be inserted and a way had to b e devisedto allow student IDs to be available. * Repeating students could access an "old" course and consequently do the wron g work.

The local Pearson contacts could help with minor issues, but anything major had t o bereferred to the United States with the consequent problem of time zone diffe rences. Another difficulty was that there were too many sources of marks (19 sets of mar ks foronline quizzes; 54 modules for MyWritingLab; four written assignments; workshopq uizzes; and an attendance mark). This in turn created administrative havoc and th econsequent need for adequate resources. However, the initial administrative support allocated was only one staff member, who wasexpected to spend only about a half time load on the subject. The admini strativecomplexity meant that there was a need for significant additional resource s to run thesubject effectively, and more resources were allocated, growing (at th e time of writing) tothree staff members, two working full time and one working h alf time on the subject. Reflections In reflecting on the experience in Business Academic Skills, our experience highlig htssome of the issues raised in the literature, as well as raising some additional po ints. Interms of the literature, the major difficulties that were encountered and th e poor studentfeedback results obtained when the subject was initially taught tot ally online is in keepingwith the findings of Collopy and Arnold (2009). Further, as the su bject progressivelybecame more truly blended learning in nature, an increasing di sconnect between theface-to-face content and the online content emerged, as neither aspect of the subject wasrelated and staff teachi ng in the subject became alienated from the online content. This isin keeping with the findings of Wang (2010) and Aldrich (2006) , who concluded that thecoordination between face-to-face and online interaction is a critical factor affectingcollaborative learning processes. In addition, the experience with MyWritingLab has raised the issue of culturalappr opriateness in the choice of on-

line components of blended learning. This may nothave been an issue in many of t he studies cited in the literature as these are mainly US orUK based, as are most o f the online materials used in business subjects. Further, theexperience with the administ rative complexity in, firstly, trying to blend university systemswith the publisher's system, and secondly, in trying to blend this with the administrativesystem used f or the inhouse quizzes, modules and assignments used in the subject,highlights the signific ant administrative requirement in blended learning subjects andhence the crucial need for such subjects to be given adequate administrative resources. Many of these issues have been subsequently addressed. The American content is sue hasnow been resolved as Pearson has now introduced an Australian version o f MyWritingLab.The administrative support provided has grown from one staff me mber who had beeninitially allocated a half time role. However, the poor experien ce of this experiment inblended learning has resulted in such a reduction in online activities that the subject isnow almost totally taught in the traditional way, w ith only a small amount of onlinequizzes; certainly no more than would be found in many contemporary subjec ts. As aresult of these changes and significant reduction of blended learning, stud ent feedbackreports have shown a major improvement in student satisfaction ove r the earlier blendedlearning model. This runs counter to the findings of Schaber e t. al. (2010), demonstratingthat blended learning is not a substitute for a well desi gned curriculum, and will notachieve its hoped for outcomes unless attention is p aid to integration of blended andface-toface content, cultural issues, and administrative support. Failure can be costly inte rms of staff burnout and poor student feedback, and may discourage furtherexper imentation. Case Studies Two and Three--The HR Simulation (Graduate and Undergraduate) In the next section the examples of blended learning focus on the use of an onlinesimulation. This example involves the use of a Human Resource simulation pu blished byInterpretive Simulations (2009) at two universities in both undergradua

te and graduatesubjects over a number of teaching semesters. In this discussion we consider groupdynamics, technical issues, student evaluation and learning out comes. The aim was to enable students to understand complex problems, experience wor king indiverse teams, and ultimately make decisions in the face of many competin g options.Simulations provide valuable practice in a highly engaging environment. The HRsimulation is a competitive simulation based on the human resources man agementfunctions (recruitment, training and development, wages and benefits). The simulation provides practice in a lowrisk, highly engaging environment. It takes thestudent beyond the academic envir onment to the competitive marketplace. To quote onestudent "it is not a learning tool, it is a motivation for you to learn". Resultsoriented HRM students often prefer activities that emphasise efficiency and order rather than adaptability and openness. They may struggle with how to integrate d ynamicnatural systems and complex social processes with controloriented management systems.The perspective and skills required for this integra tion can only be learned throughexperience. This makes simulations an ideal medi um for teaching. The parameters of the simulation are set at the 'macro' level. Teams begin by esta blishingtheir department's 'goals and objectives' given the nature of the industry and the brief bytheir general manager. Once they have determined these, they ar e then required todevelop strategies designed to achieve them. Each team is assigned an annual budget, which sets limits on the extent to which t hey canachieve their strategies and which requires them to prioritise their expend iture. The simulation is normally conducted over 612 simulated quarters, with teams able torevise their strategies each quarter, and their goals every four quarters. Decisions are to bemade each quarter on human resource matters such as wage increases, benefits,performance management, trai

ning and development, and teamwork. Results of teamdecisions are then reflecte d in a range of human resource indicators, including turnoverrates, level of grieva nces, absenteeism, level of overtime, quality, morale and OHS issues. As students see the impact of their decisions they alter their strategy. Students als o paymore attention to the effort they put into decisions as the competitive elem ent comes out.An interactive learning environment propels the principles of probl em oriented learninginto the classroom. In both graduate and undergraduate classes, group dynamics were very evident a ndreflected how involved the students were in the simulation decisions and subse quentperformance. The full range of group process (forming, storming, norming, performing)was evident, with groups asking for nonperforming students to be removed from theirteam. In several semesters, it has been observed that some teams who have performed poorly inearly quarters, have come back strongly in the last couple of quarters to come out on, orclose to, the top of the class. Teams which have been consistent p erformers early havemaintained their position. This may be because poorly perfor ming teams becomemotivated as their performance is easily observable. Also, bec ause other teams that havelearned to anticipate the decisionmaking style of the other teams may be caught'unaware'. This would appear to be consistent with one of the key learning objectives for the simulation. That is, to show students that in the real world, financial realities prev ent thepossibility of making all decisions at once, and that normally decisions are madeincrementally over long periods of time, with a priority to ensuring that all d ecisions takenare consistent with the broad long term HR strategy, in order to fost er a consistent cultureand build employee morale. Learning outcomes were generally very good; students love the simulation and be comevery competitive. In the undergraduate offering, student feedback results us ing the 'trafficlight' system, are consistently green (at high levels) with student co mments frequentlyhighlighting the simulation experience as very rewarding. The

experience is similar withthe postgraduate offering. Some student evaluation feed back included the following: The simulation forced me to learn as I had to put a convincing argument to the team as to why they should follow my decision.

While the simulation was frustrating at times, it was an excellent way to link theory to the real world. Reflections In reflecting on the HR Simulation, our experience reflects many of the outcomes reportedin the literature on the use of simulations in blended learning. Students a re certainlymotivated, work well collaboratively (De Freitas, 2006), work in strateg ic ways, solvecomplex problems, and work across business functions, with student s needing to work to abudget (Romme, 2003). Learning is also facilitated by strong social interaction both ingroups and in competition between groups Xu and Yang (2010). Another issue found inthe literature is the fact that the simulation runs as a separate section of each subject.While we attempt to align its content with the f ace-toface material in keeping with theapproach of Aldrich (2006), the generic nature of the simulation means that this is notcompletely possible. One outcome is totally at odds with the findings of Dziuban and Moskal's (2001) Fl oridacase study which found that the introduction of blended learning led to a red uction inface-toface class time. While this may also be a desire of some university managers, oure xperience is the opposite. We have found that the simulation works better, and st udentshave a better experience, when an hour of class time is allocated to a grou p debriefing ofthe results from each round, and to groups working on inputs for t he next round, withacademic staff being on hand to answer questions and talk iss

ues through with students.In the undergraduate offering, for example, this has le d to a change in the use offace-toface time, with the previous model of two hour lecture and one hour tutorial bein greplaced by one hour lecture, one hour simulation workshop, and one hour tutor ial. So theface-toface load is unchanged, but pressures on academic staff have arguably increased with the three teaching modes. This may be because the simulation is generic and therefore not totally integrated with other subject content. However, we would e xpect thisto be a common occurrence given the predominance of US based simula tions. While thiscase shows that the use of simulations as part of a blended learni ng approach can producevaluable outcomes, it cannot be assumed that the use of blended learning willautomatically free up staff teaching time for other work. Further, in keeping with our experience in the Business Academic Skills case, oure xperience with the HR Simulation also draws out the issue of cultural appropriate ness,with the simulation based on US human resource practices, as well as the iss ue ofadministrative support. In both cases where we use the HR Simulation, all ad ministrativesupport is provided by academic staff. Some recommendations are to move away from using generic computer based pa ckages,especially extended lengthy computer packages. Due to the administrative complexitythere is a temptation to revert back to traditional classroom teaching. Another alternativeis to develop noncomputer based descriptive simulations tailored to a specific subject butthis has si gnificant workload implications. Another alternative is to Australianise the simulation which would increase its rel evanceand manageability but still not guarantee a match to individual subject req uirements. Forexample, an Australian version of MyWritingLab has just been deve loped. Another trend isthe emergence of shorter generic computer simulations w hich require only three to fourhours of student time which can be slotted into onl y one or two self contained topicswithin the subject. In contrast however with Business Academic Skills where the issues with the onlinecontent have led to it being significantly reduced, our experience with the HR

Simulationhas been much more positive. This is partly because of the smaller class sizes involved,with the associated reduction in administrative complexity, and par tly because it is asimulation, whereas the blended learning component in BAS was simply on-line activitiesand quizzes. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we have examined three cases of our use of blended learning in the contextof the growing literature on this topic. While noting its considerable pote ntial to improvethe student learning experience, we have found that blended lear ning is not automaticallysuccessful. Some of the reasons for this, such as the need to integrate the online aspects ofthe curriculum with the face-toface elements have been identified in the literature. Wewould suggest, however, that given the preponderance of generic US based simulations inthe Australian m arket, this is a very significant issue. We have also identified two additional factors not covered in the general literatur e: firstly,the significance of cultural appropriateness of online material, following from the use ofgeneric US material; secondly, we have ide ntified the need for appropriate administrativesupport. As well, our experience ru ns counter to the view that blended learning willnecessarily lead to a reduction in face-to-face time. So, while blended learning does offer the prospect of improved student learning o utcomesand a more positive experience generally for students, it is not without c ost, and cannot betaken as a simple universal panacea for all future course design . REFERENCES Aldrich, C. (2006), Simulations and the future of learning. An innovative and perha psrevolutionary approach to e-learning, San Francisco, Pfeiffer. Bonk, C.J., & Graham, C.R. (eds.) (2006), Handbook of blended learning: Globalper spectives, local designs, San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. Bligh, D. (2000) What's the Point in Discussion? :Exeter, UK, Intellect Books

Caruso, J. & Salaway, G. (2007), The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students andIn formation Technology, Educause Center for Applied Research. Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001), Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectation, London: Kogan Page. Collopy, R.M.B. & Arnold, J.M. (2009), 'To Blend or Not To Blend: Online and Blen dedLearning Environments in Undergraduate Teacher Education', Issues in Teache rEducation, 18 (2), pp. 85-101. Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J (2006), Student Experiences ofTechno logies: LXP final report, Bristol, JISC de Freitas, S. & Oliver, M. (2005), 'A four dimensional framework for the evaluatio n andassessment of educational games and simulations', paper presented at the C omputerAssisted Learning Conference, Bristol, 4-6 April. de Freitas, S. & Oliver, M. (2006), 'How can exploratory learning with games andsi mulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated?', Computers andE ducation (special issue), 46, pp. 249-264. Dede, C. (2005), 'Planning for "Neomillennial" Learning Styles: Implications forInve stments in Technology and Faculty' in J. Oblinger & D. Oblinger (eds.), Educating t heNet Generation, pp. 226247. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Publishers.http://www.educause.edu/educatingthe netgen/ Driscoll, M. (2007), Consultants point of view, IBM Global Services.http://www07.ibm.com/services/pdf/blended_learning.pdf Dziuban, C. & Moskal, P. (2001), 'Evaluating distributed learning in metropolitanu niversities.' Metropolitan Universities, 12(1), 41-49. Ellis, R. A. & Goodyear, P. (2010), Students Experiences of ELearning in HigherEducation, Abingdon, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Heuer, M. (2010), 'Foundations and Capstone; Core Values and Hot Topics; EthicsLX;SkyTech; and The Green Business Laboratory: Simulations for Sustainability Ed ucation',Academy of Management Learning & Education; 9 (3), pp. 556-561. HoicBozic, N., Mornar, V. & Boticki, I. (2009) 'A Blended Learning Approach to CourseD esign and Implementation', IEEE transactions on education, 52 (1), pp. 19-30. Interpretive Simulations (2009) HRsimulation: Overview and Student Manual. Pea rsonEducation, http://www.interpretive.com/rd5/index.php Jefferies, A. and Hyde, R. (2010) 'Building the Future Students' Blended LearningEx periences from Current Research Findings', Electronic Journal of ELearning, Vol. 8,Issue 2, pp. 133-140. Jones, N. and Lau, A.M.S. (2010) 'Blending learning: widening participation in high ereducation', Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(4), pp. 405416. Le Rossignol, K. (2009) 'Designing Blended Learning in Higher Education: TheNeo millenial Learner and Mediated Immersion', The International Journal of theHuma nities, 6 (10), pp. 53-60. MyWritingLab (2011) MyWritingLab Global (First Edition). Pearson Education Aust ralia,http://www.pearson.com.au/searchresults/productdetails/?isbn= 9781442547681 Oblinger, D. and J. Oblinger, (Eds.) (2006). Educating the Net Generation, accessed onlinefrom < http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf Romme, A.G.L. (2003), 'Learning outcomes of microworlds for management educa tion',Management Learning, 34, 51-61. Rovai, A.P., & Jordan, H.M. (2004) 'Blended learning and sense of community: Aco mparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses', Internation alReview of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2).

Schaber P., Wilcox K.J., Whiteside A., Marsh, L. and Brooks, C. (2010). 'DesigningLe arning Environments to Foster Affective Learning: Comparison of Classroom toBle nded Learning.' International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning ,4(2) Sharpe, R., Beetham, H., Benfield, G., de Cicco, E., Lessner, E. Learners Experience s ofElearning Synthesis Report: Explaining Learner Differences, accessed online 18/01/ 2011from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedag ogy/lxp2finalsynthesis.pdf Shih, R.C. (2010) 'Blended learning using videobased blogs: Public speaking for Englishas a second language students.' Australasi an Journal of Educational Technology 26(6),883-897. So, H.J. & Bonk, C.J. (2010) 'Examining the Roles of Blended Learning Approaches i nComputerSupported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Environments: A Delphi Study',Education al Technology and Society, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 189-200. Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation, New York: McGraw-Hill. Voos, R. (2003). 'Blended Learning: What is it and where might it take us?' SloanC View2(1), 2-5. Wang, M.J. (2010). 'Online collaboration and offline interaction between students usingasynchronous tools in blended learning.' Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,26(6), 830-846. Xu, Yang; Yang, Yi (2010). 'Student Learning in Business Simulation: An EmpiricalIn vestigation'. Journal of Education for Business, 85 (4), pp. 223-228. Christine O'Connor University of Ballarat Dennis Mortimer

University of Western Sydney Sue Bond University of Western Sydney Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com Publication information: Article title: Blended Learning: Issues, Benefits and Challenges. Contributors: O'Connor, Christine - Author, Mortimer, Dennis Author, Bond, Sue - Author. Journal title: International Journal of Employment Studies. Volume: 19. Issue: 2 Publication date: October 2011. Page number: 63+. 2008 GROWES Research Group. COPYRIGHT 2011 Gale Group.