1

Teacher and student responses to

blended environments

Draft of:

Trentin G. & Wheeler S. (2009). Teacher and student responses to blended environments In E. Stacey and P.

Gerbic (Eds) Effective blended learning practices: Evidence-based perspectives in ICT-facilitated education,

ch.6 (pp. 105-123). IGI - Idea Group, Inc., Hershey, PA, USA, ISBN: 978-160566296-1.

Guglielmo Trentin

Institute for Educational Technology, Italian National Research Council, Genoa

Steve Wheeler University of Plymouth, UK

ABSTRACT

This chapter provides a further two European perspectives on blended learning. The first section is an

overview of the ways in which the concept of blended solutions is interpreted in the Italian Network-

Based Education context. Results of research carried out at some Italian Universities about various

approaches to Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) are described which account for an increasing

tendency of teachers to choose blended solutions. On the basis of interviews with 250 teachers some

important blended solutions sustainability factors are analyzed pertaining to the pedagogical,

professional, socio-cultural, informal dimensions as well as the content, organizational, economic and

technological. In the second section of the chapter, an overview of blended and personalised

learning in the United Kingdom is presented, with a critical review of some of the recent British

research into the efficacy of Learning Management System (LMS) based blended learning

approaches. . Central to the chapter section is a discussion regarding the future of the LMS and how

the Network Generation is migrating toward social networking sites and mobile technology to connect

with their peers. The chapter finishes with the suggestion that personalised learning environments

(PLEs) will be their preferred blended learning and communication approach.

KEYWORDS

Network-based education, blended solutions, networked collaborative learning, content-driven

learning, technology enhanced learning, learning community, formal and informal learning, Learning

Management System, blended learning, social networking, personalised learning, nomadic learning

INTRODUCTION

In institutional settings, it is teachers and students who lie at the heart of blended learning. One

characteristic of the relationship between these two parties is their different exposure to and comfort

with ICT which is reflected in Prensky’s (2001) often quoted reference to digital natives and digital

immigrants. This chapter provides two European perspectives which examine blended learning issues

for teachers and learners. Initially, this chapter presents research from Italy which discusses teachers’

2

reasons for choosing blended approaches and significant factors in the sustainability of blended

solutions. A critical commentary on the role of learning management systems in blended

environments in the United Kingdom is then provided which discusses future trends, especially the

use of personal learning environments for the Net Generation.

BLENDED SOLUTIONS AND NETWORK-BASED EDUCATION: AN ITALIAN

PERSPECTIVE

Research on the educational use of ICT in Italy, has shown how organizational, logistic and economic

aspects are often considered as one of the key elements in promoting the sustainability of Network-

Based Education (NBE) (Trentin, 2008). However, it is known that to guarantee appreciable quality in

NBE, these elements should not precede those more specifically related to the pedagogical dimension

of NBE (Seufert and Euler, 2003). Whenever this happens, the choice of pedagogical approach is

generally conditioned and channeled towards a NBE based primarily on the individual (and passive)

study of educational materials (e-content) (Collins & Van der Wende, 2002; Howell et al., 2004).

Despite being usually considered cheaper, content-driven approaches almost always curb the quality

of the learning process, since they deprive it of its other important key dimension, namely social

interaction (Varis, 2004). If the social dimension of learning is to be fostered in NBE, then the

network should not merely be seen as a means of distributing educational materials but also as a

resource that is able to facilitate distance interaction with both teachers and other students (Zemsky

and Massy, 2004; Attwell, 2005).

This result can be obtained by adopting Networked Collaborative Learning (NCL) strategies. The

term NCL gives a clear idea of how extensively the computer network is used in the learning process;

participants interact in a fully-fledged learning community (formal or informal), which helps them to

overcome their isolation and enhances their contribution to the group (Stahl, 2006).

In NCL, phases of individual study alternate with remote interaction between one or more virtual

classes. This is an approach that combines aspects of traditional distance learning (individual study

and possible remote connection with tutors) with substantial interaction between participants

(teachers, students and experts), a characteristic typical of face-to-face teaching (Harasim et al.,

1995).

However, “pure” NCL strategies are not always easy to apply. There are several reasons for this. One

is that some subjects are not particularly well suited to network communication. Another is that

course participants might not be used to and/or willing to join the particular communication dynamics

of courses that are almost entirely based on written interaction. Furthermore, attaining high quality

standards of learning often requires time for direct face-to-face social interaction between students

and teachers.

In Italy this is a very popular stance taken towards company training (Ecipa, 2005) where there is also

the need to combine different media and social interaction modes in order to diversify the strategies

aimed at providing solutions, in real time, to everyday professional needs. In this sense company

training has a certain preference for training activities which (Ecipa, 2005):

are not run totally at a distance;

include group activities;

feature strong tutor and expert presence;

integrate formal and informal learning.

3

This would suggest heading towards mixed courses that provide onsite learning alternated with highly

interactive distance activities in which the learner receives online support from tutors,

experts/specialists and their peers (Fill, 2006a). In other words there is the need for blended solutions

based on formal and informal learning processes provided through the integration of online and onsite

interactions.

Clearly, at this point, the term “networked collaborative learning” tends to take on a wider meaning. It

is not intended to indicate merely that the education process is supported by a computer network, but

also (and more importantly) that the process is underpinned by a network of inter-relationships that

link up the participants in the process itself. These inter-relationships help a community of learners to

collaborate together in pursuit of a specific learning goal. So the “network” is primarily referring to a

network of individuals rather than a computer network for distance communication between those

same individuals.

BLENDED SOLUTIONS AND UNIVERSITY TEACHING IN ITALY

An area which is increasingly interested in adopting blended solutions is the university, although its

reasons for doing so are different from those of companies (Davies and Fill, 2007). But how are

blended solutions placed in the wider context of ICT educational uses in university teaching?

An indication emerges from the results of research conducted between 2004 and 2007 at some Italian

universities in Genoa, Milan and Turin. The research aimed to study the main approaches towards

Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) adopted by teachers in developing entire courses online and in

integrating distance activities with classroom lessons.

The study used 4 specific projects as a reference context whose aim was to diffuse TEL within

university education: the Xanadu project (Trentin, 2006) by the Institute for Educational Technology

of the National Research Council (ITD-CNR); the ODL project (Open and Distance Learning) of the

University of Turin; the BEL project (Bocconi E-Learning) by “Bocconi” University in Milan; the

WEL project (Web Enhanced Learning), a collaboration between ITD-CNR and the University of

Genoa . The general aims of the projects were similar:

to foster cultural growth on TEL issues, seeking to break down the most common

misunderstandings and prejudices and underlining the central and irreplaceable role of the

teacher in ICT-based education;

to define a shared methodological framework concerning the use of the different TEL

approaches in university teaching;

to train teachers in the fundamentals of TEL-related instructional design;

to support the design, development, implementation and delivery of TEL courses or structured

online learning material and activities to integrate face-to-face teaching.

For training teachers in higher education, in particular, a project-based approach was used. Teachers

were given a specific instructional design model and were expected to transform their face-to-face

course into one which was totally or partially based on TEL approaches. To facilitate this stage, the

teachers were called upon to complete grids (so-called “project-grids”) which were intended not only

to guide them through the various design steps according to the given model, but also to record their

project steps, giving reasons which gradually lead them to decide on which TEL approaches to adopt

in their courses.

4

This material was analysed step by step and used to undertake an initial survey on the trends of

teachers adopting TEL approaches. This analysis was then integrated with direct interviews with the

teachers in order to pin down further details regarding the motives behind their didactic choices, these

not always being able to be deduced from just reading the project report itself. In all, about 250

teachers were involved in the project from almost all of the Faculties, being equitably distributed

among the arts and science and technology faculties. Figure 1 summarizes the results emerging from

the research (Trentin, 2008).

Figure 1 - Distribution of approaches of ICT educational use in university teaching

For simplicity, the different types of TEL uses have been grouped into 6 macro-categories and are

shown briefly in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – The different types of TEL uses

Type of approach Description

Informative use This is the most elementary use of the Web; to send information to students

(course information, exam dates, teacher office hours, etc.).

Distributive use Here the Web is seen mainly as a one-way channel to distribute to students any

learning material regarded as useful by the teacher and that can be transmitted in

an electronic format: slides used in lessons, lecture notes, articles and extracts

from books, exercises, previous exam texts, self-assessment tests, etc.

Interactive use In this case the Web is used to foster various types of interpersonal

communicationi:

[71%] “one-to-one” teacher-student communications, used for requests for

information, questions and answers on specific course topics, individual

correction of exercises, etc.

[6%] “one-to-many” communications, typical of tele-lessons given synchronously, with the possibility of interacting with the teacher by synchronous and/or asynchronous response channels;

[43%] “many-to-many” communications almost always based on

5

asynchronous interaction using forums, computer conferencing systems, e-

groups, etc. to run collaborative activities, one-two week workshops, etc.

Blended solutions Although the concept of blended solutions refers to the integration of methods

and educational tools more than to the time-space dimension, in most cases

these approaches are interpreted as the alternation of onsite and online

teaching/learning activities, where the latter are not optional but are an integral

part of the course.

Content-driven learning This approach envisages the creation of e-content that will foster and support

self-study processes.

Networked collaborative

learning

Refers to educational processes run directly by the teacher, based on the

integration of self-study and collaborative learning

Although the graph shows that only 22% of faculties who teach with the aid of ICT adopt blended

solutions, this actual percentage is now rising noticeably. For example, with reference to the WEL

project alone, the 2007/2008 cycle showed 48% of teachers opting to adopt a blended solution. The

idea that is emerging is that blended solutions are the most sustainable; precisely because they offer

the advantages of the various approaches contributing towards shaping them.

This aspect affects university education where, besides individual study, there is a strong need for

direct teacher/learner interaction and where there is a wide range of possible teaching strategies

(especially based on inter-personal interaction) which teachers can adopt to enhance their students’

learning processes.

WHY CHOOSE A BLENDED SOLUTION?

The direct interviews with teachers clearly showed their reasons for choosing to adopt blended

approaches. The two main reasons were the followingii:

[83%] to recover classroom time in favour of greater interaction with students. Thus, whenever

possible, the teacher’s classroom role of illustrating content is delegated to the teaching

material. In other words, the teacher limits the classroom presentation of what the student can

study independently (the explicit knowledge conveyed by textbooks and other media) and

reinvests the time gained in direct interaction with the pupils to provide further explanation and

clarification and to transmit their own professional know-how (non-explicit knowledge, or in

any case elements that cannot be communicated through textbooks and other media);

[18%] to reduce the number of face-to-face lessons, to meet the needs of those students who

work or perhaps live far from the university and to find a solution to the problem of physical

space availability for the face-to-face lessons.

As can be seen, the first reason was pedagogical, aimed at optimising classroom time without

necessarily reducing the number of face-to-face lessons. The second reason, on the other hand, was

mainly intended to provide a solution to logistical problems. It is interesting to note how the reason

for teachers adopting a blended solution is primarily pedagogical.

IMPLICATIONS

The previous sections have identified blended approaches as highly sustainable in the wider

framework of ICT educational uses. It is therefore now worthwhile to examine more closely some

important factors emerging from the teachers’ interviews regarding the sustainability of blended

solutions (Trentin, 2007).

The Economical Dimension

6

This dimension refers to all aspects related to the optimization of resources at stake, ranging from

development to practice costs, to those for subsequent reinvestments. A blended solution requires

matching the typical resources of face-to-face teaching and TEL. With regard to university education,

for example, face-to-face teaching is already in place as part of traditional methodology and therefore,

in principle, implies no new costs.

However much as they require ad hoc investment, the resources needed for the network-based phases

of the blended solution will never amount to as much as that generally required by teaching which is

based exclusively on e-learning that is entire re-planning of courses, ad hoc materials development,

specialized technologies, technicians, and purposely-trained professional figures who are totally

dedicated to this work (Bersin, 2003).

The Pedagogical Dimension

This dimension concerns the added value and the pedagogical potentialities introduced by media use

in order to promote blended learning sustainability with regard to the quality of the teaching/learning

processes (Elliot, 2008).

In this sense, a blended solution can enhance the pedagogical effectiveness of the educational process

by taking advantage of the distinctive characteristics of the different approaches which contribute

towards shaping it. For example:

adopting e-learning approaches only when they prove to be more effective didactically, not so

much because they resolve problems regarding distance, but rather because they make it

possible to break up and play separately on the two elements of “space” (I’ll do as much as

possible at home, locally, maybe relying on an online tutor or participating to an online learning

group) and “time” (when the conditions around me allow it);

planning face-to-face activities which foster the socialization of all the actors of the learning

process, as well as involving teaching activities which can only be carried out effectively in the

classroom or in the laboratory;

making the learning process more effective by mitigating the potential disadvantages of the

technology due to a possible absence of daily use of network technologies or to the poor

availability of mediated interaction, or even to the difficulty of managing the study of particular

contents only online.

The Professional Dimension

This involves identifying the key figures needed for the design, development, delivery and

management of blended solutions (Kearsley and Blomeyer, 2004), as well as methods for their

training. The professional dimension also includes issues concerned with formal recognition and

appreciation of these roles, as well as strategies for a generalized cultural development towards the

educational use of ICT.

A teacher wishing to adopt blended solutions does not necessarily have to be a skilled e-teacher.

Moreover, considering that a blended solution may not regard the use of materials developed

according to the norms of Open and Distance Learning (ODL), not even the presence of an e-content

designer is needed. However, what is required of the teacher is the acquisition of the key elements of

instructional design with specific reference to the planning of blended teaching.

The Informal Dimension

7

This dimension concerns those processes that see individuals meeting their cognitive demands

through the autonomous use of e-content and, above all, their participation in networked communities

aimed at sharing information, knowledge and good practices (Cross, 2005). Hence, a blended

solution, particularly in activities outside the classroom, can become a very good training ground for

practising one’s skills in the autonomous use of ICT: today, to approach those resources considered

useful for study, tomorrow, to meet one’s need for continuous education.

The Organizational Dimension

This refers to creating the organizational conditions (development of structures and processes) to

actually be able to integrate blended solutions in the standard practices of the organization in order to

“institutionalize” them (White, 2006). Blended solutions do not imply any radical reconfiguration of

the delivery process of education. Many activities used in a blended solution may already be carried

out in an organizational setting, such as those conducted in the classroom or laboratory.

The Content Dimension

This involves both the quality of the transmitted content and the way of keeping them constantly

updated. As mentioned, a blended solution does not necessarily imply development of ad hoc

materials, which instead occurs when adopting content-driven e-learning. There is the tendency to use

what is at one’s disposal and/or what can be found online (but not only). The aim is to focus more on

the process than on the self-study teaching materials. This, among other things, contributes towards

cutting down an item which often weighs heavily on the costs of e-learning and at the same time

enables greater flexibility in keeping study material for students up to date.

The Technological Dimension

This is concerned with aspects related to the functionality and stability of an adequate technological

infrastructure which is capable of adapting to the requirements of both the context and the individual

user. To implement a blended solution does not necessarily imply imposing aprioristic choices with

regard to platforms and communication systems. To carry out the parts at a distance, a readily

structurable repository can suffice together with a flexible environment for group interaction.

Although this is conjecture at this stage, especially in relation to an institutional context, Web 2.0

currently makes a large amount of useful resources accessible for this purpose.

The Socio-Cultural Dimension

This dimension refers to the socio-cultural changes required for a wide diffusion of blended learning

approaches (Davies and Fill, 2007). By alternating time for individual study, network activities and

classroom activities, a blended solution does not leave the entire running of the learning process in the

hands of the learner as happens in content-driven approaches. This mitigates the impact that a

systematic use of technology could provide for those who do not have the appropriate habit and

culture to participate effectively in an educational event based exclusively on NBE (MacDonald,

2004). The alternation between self-study of e-content and face-to-face social interaction not only

strengthens cohesion among all of the actors in the process but also helps to eliminate (at least

partially) those harmful anxiety-provoking effects for those participating in an NBE course for the

first time. In other words, as well as reassuring learners attending a course on networked technologies,

a blended solution can help them gradually acquire a correct method in the autonomous and formal

and/or informal educational use of the technologies themselves.

8

Another interesting social implication concerns the possibility of differentiating interactions among

the participants involved in the teaching/learning process. In a traditional classroom the teacher takes

up most of the time dedicated to communication. If and when any discussion takes place, it is often

dominated by one or just a handful of students while the rest are quiet (the most reflective, the shy

ones, those unable to maintain concentration, etc.). During an online asynchronous interaction many

more students have the opportunity to participate in the discussion, and the number of contributions

within the group is more equally distributed.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING BLENDED LEARNING PRACTICE

Blended solutions imply combining a number of teaching approaches that can be formal and informal,

directive and discovery-oriented, based on technology and social interaction, and online and face-to-

face collaboration. A blended approach therefore requires finding the right mix among all its possible

components. It is therefore best to start out with a clear definition of the educational objectives and

then, for each of them, identify the most effective teaching activities and strategies to achieve them.

A foremost recommendation is therefore to follow instructional design criteria which at the same time

integrate approaches for designing classroom activities with those for designing NBE, also taking into

account the specificities, potentiality and criticality of the technological media intended to be used

(McCracken and Dobson, 2004). For example, during course planning a good balance should be

provided between classroom activities (face-to-face lesson, laboratory, discussion regarding

occurrences online, etc.) and distance activities (individual study, group activity, etc.), in such a way

that each one is functional to the other and vice versa.

In other words, classroom activities should help lay the foundations for following distance activity,

and the expected objectives, assignments, times and results should be clarified. Similarly, distance

activities should be structured so that they are functional, if not essential, to the subsequent face-to-

face meeting. Among these, the following should be mentioned:

individual study of learning material available both online and offline;

interaction with teachers/tutors as process facilitators;

interaction with other experts/specialists;

free interaction with other participants in the same learning path;

interaction arranged with other users in the same learning path aimed to enhance collaborative

learning strategies.

If, however, on the one hand it is important to adopt instructional design criteria oriented towards

blended solutions, on the other hand it is very often noticeable how teachers are unfamiliar with

instructional design in general (Fill, 2006b). Indeed, in university education, teachers by nature are

primarily experts in their subject with no, or hardly any notions of instructional design. Their

pedagogy is generally “spontaneous” and relates to their direct experience, firstly as a student and

then as a teacher, and year after year they refine their own style of managing the learning/teaching

process. An exception to this are teachers from specific Faculties, such as the Faculty of Educational

Sciences, or those teachers interested in deepening their understanding of the pedagogical aspects to

improve ways of teaching their subjectiii

.

Although this “spontaneity” may even be acceptable in classroom teaching, the adoption of blended

approaches automatically entails teachers acquiring the fundamental notions of instructional design.

In this way they can plan the most effective blend of approaches to reach the stated learning objective

using both technology mediation and face-to-face interaction. This does not imply that adopting a

9

blended approach requires teachers to become professional instructional designers because they will

still be required to be experts and teachers in their field. Nevertheless, if teachers are prepared to

undertake the design, development and running of blended-type teaching activities, there will be

greater improvement in the quality standard of the corresponding learning/teaching process.

A second recommendation to enhance the use of blended approaches therefore involves arranging

training (less theoretical and very practical) for faculty members on the principles of instructional

design (Kearsley and Blomeyer, 2004). In our experience, excellent results have been obtained using

project-based learning strategies centred on the study and application of instructional design criteria in

re-designing, in a blended learning context, courses previously delivered via traditional methods or

just partially supported by ICT (Trentin, 2006).

In this regard, a further recommendation is to create whenever possible an inter-faculty team as a

support for teachers, especially during their first experiences of designing and running blended

solutions. Assistance in running the course is important above all when the blended solution envisages

collaborative online learning activities and the teacher still has little experience in facilitating an

online group (Salmon, 2004).

In the Italian context, this support sometimes comes from officially recognised university centres

which serve as a reference point for ICT-based educational innovation. At other times though, support

in training and during the initial deliveries of TEL courses stems from actions taken by the university

according to project-specific financing (see projects referred to in our research). In the first case the

university aims to establish a stable process for spreading TEL practices by implementing ad hoc

centres with specialized staff (instructional designers, e-content developers, information

technologists). In the second case, the idea is to invest directly in teachers in terms of knowledge and

competence in instructional design and in running technology-supported teaching activities. Both of

these choices have advantages and disadvantages , although the policy of setting up specialized

centres provides a clearer vision for institutionalising TEL practices within the university.

Furthermore, this sends a very strong signal to faculty members with consequent repercussions on

their motivation for investing time and effort in acquiring ever greater knowledge in TEL and in

redesigning their own courses in a blended learning context.

A key factor towards institutionalising technology-supported teaching regards the status of the teacher

who adopts blended approaches in their teaching and in particular the development of their abilities in

teaching with the support of technologies. It is well-known that qualified teachers are given a formal

certification regarding both their expertise in their given subject and the education level of the

qualification. However, certifications referring to the acquisition or not of TEL competences are

rarely taken into the same consideration. Despite the value-added experience and continuous

education on methods and technologies, its lack of recognition justifies considering the use of TEL

approaches as something ancillary to classroom teaching. Thus a strong imperative arises to

renegotiate the teachers’ status at both a normative and educational level incorporating, amongst their

competences, the ability to apply blended approaches to their teaching.

But how does the teachers status vary according to their adoption of new teaching methods with and

through the use of ICT? The role of the teacher obviously continues to be central although, compared

to classroom teaching, their function shifts from being a face-to-face teacher to a learning process

facilitator of content in which they are experts, contributing towards preparing e-content and

supervising interactive networked activities. Their role alters depending on the type of TEL approach

10

intended to be adopted. However this is often associated with work overload, particularly when the

activities carried out online are not formally recognised in calculating the teaching load. This is a

widespread situation and in Italy there is no “official” regulation in this respect to meet the

requirements. Recognition of the hours spent undertaking online teaching has to date been negotiated

between individual teachers and their respective institutions (Kearsley and Blomeyer, 2004).

It is, therefore, highly recommended that to help diffuse and stabilize the adoption of blended

approaches, the rules and criteria that guarantee teachers being properly recognized for all those tasks

not falling within the norms of face-to-face teaching be defined. The lack of such a guarantee leads to

well-known effects: after some initial curiosity in the new teaching strategies, stimulated also by ad

hoc initiatives promoted by the universities, only a small number of teachers involved in training

continue to use them. This is often due more to personal and research interest than to any real

conviction in the method’s sustainability from an institutional/organisational perspective. The others,

at most, end up using just a minimal amount of their training and ensuring that no more time is

invested in applying the new methods than that formally recognized by the university in terms of

teaching load. Thus, in view of a sometimes substantial commitment in economic resources in

faculties training and technologies, the outcome sees a modest return in investment on terms of

teaching innovation and impact at a systemic level on the institution.

ITALIAN RESEARCH CONCLUSION

From the thoughts presented here, one can conclude that future research on blended learning will have

to be suitably divided between the deep study of theoretical models, and the definition of

organizational issues related to the context in which those models will be managed and used. The

models will certainly evolve thanks to the availability of increasingly sophisticated technologies or

simply those that today, for economic reasons, are less accessible. From the …….. the institutional

point of view, however, it is increasingly clear that the diffusion of blended methods will have to be

based on a fine play of balances between teaching/pedagogical questions, the

organizational/management issues involved in the different blended approaches and the specific needs

linked to their integration within a given context of application.

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF BLENDED LEARNING IN THE UK: WHAT FUTURE

FOR THE LMS?

The need for teachers to connect with their geographically dislocated students has led to some

important pedagogical innovations in the United Kingdom, including the first correspondence course,

developed by Sir Isaac Pittman in the Victorian era, and the inception of one of the world’s first

distance universities, the United Kingdom Open University (UKOU) in the 1960s (Wheeler, 2005).

The UKOU has developed and refined a blended learning approach which draws on a mix of distance

learning with less frequent but strategic face to face study, including local tutorials and summer

schools which are held on the campuses of traditional universities. This combination of local and

remote learning, supported by specialised tutors through face-to-face meetings and mediated through

technology, has proven to be so successful that many other so called ‘mega-universities’ (Daniel,

1996) around the world have emulated its formula.

In parallel with the rest of the industrialised world, United Kingdom (UK) universities have been

pressed into developing their own culture of electronic (e) learning. The use of e-learning presupposes

that a blend of the best techniques and experiences are combined with traditional face to face study

methods. Universities and colleges are keen to offer students ‘any time, any place’ learning

11

opportunities that meet diverse needs and changing work based practices. When first implemented,

many e-learning initiatives were built around learning management systems that had been purchased

because money had been made available. Few e-learning initiatives were institution wide, and most

were operated on an ad hoc basis, led by one or two enthusiasts (Hill, 2008). Most recently, many UK

institutions have concertedly embedded e-learning policies into their business models, in the hope of

reaching a wider market of students through flexible and open delivery of learning opportunities.

This is referred to as the ‘blended’ learning model because it exploits the best features of the real and

virtual environments (Concannon, Flynn & Campbell, 2005).

BLENDED LEARNING

For some time now, the term ‘blended learning’ has been synonymous with flexibility and

accessibility. In simple terms, blended learning should encourage students to study when and where

they are able to, creating learning opportunities that fit into and around their busy lifestyles. It is a

principle that has been successfully applied across all sectors of education provision, from the early

years (Ligorio & van der Meijden, 2008), through secondary education (Chandra & Lloyd, 2008), to

third age learning (Trentin, 2004). However, in UK higher education, studies have revealed that

success has not been consistent, with some universities achieving rapid gains, whilst others lag far

behind (Nichols, 2007). Some universities have been resentful of initiatives that employ large scale

electronic delivery as they perceive they are being denied students who would otherwise have

enrolled on campus based programmes (Selwyn, Gorard & Furlong, 2006). Change is often rapid and

is usually implemented simultaneously at a number of levels, including environmental, organisational

and personal. It is this cultural shift, Bell and Bell (2005) suggest, that can provoke a number of

tensions and anxieties for students and staff. They recommend that all stakeholders should be

involved in driving the change at all stages of the process (Bell & Bell, 2005). Often, however, it is

common for institutional strategies, such as the introduction of a new LMS, to be implemented with

little or no consultation with the most important stakeholder – the student.

NOMADIC LEARNING AND PORTFOLIO CAREERS

The success of lifelong learning is due in part to the fact that by its nature it is inclusive through its

span across age ranges, yet in doing so it creates a new set of issues for universities and colleges to

consider. Issues include responding to the requirements to manage and incorporate diversity,

widening participation, maintenance of complex communication technology networks and the

provision of secure access to learning resources. Still another demand has recently emerged from

lifelong learners that has been instrumental in driving the impetus of widespread LMS deployment.

Many students now enrolled in UK higher education programmes are mature students. They study on

a part-time basis whilst fully or substantially employed in demanding, time-intensive careers.

Professionals such as teachers, nurses, college lecturers and engineers are under continuous pressure

to update and upgrade their skills and knowledge. The result is that a large number of part-time,

mature students are currently flocking to enrol on course at universities across the UK, to participate

in day release, evening and weekend professional development. Often, distance learning methods are

used to supplement their study programme, and of course, technology plays a key role in these

endeavours.

Increasingly, the portfolio career is becoming the norm, with workers regularly changing jobs or even

retraining for new skills several times during their working lives. The ‘just in time’ training model

that was popular and effective in the last decade is rapidly becoming outmoded. To meet the demands

of the present fast moving knowledge economy, many providers are now offering ‘just for me’

12

training, to deliver bespoke skills and knowledge, often delivered to the students’ homes or places of

work.

Moreover, there is a growing trend for students to study while on the move, therefore the advent of

personal and mobile technologies has prompted a shift toward nomadic learning (Bouvin,

Christensen, Hansen & Nielsen, 2005). Nomadic learners are adept at managing change and are able

to study within the workplace, at home, and especially whilst travelling, as well as in a more

traditional mode on campus. It is a movement that typifies the information society, and has evolved in

response to the ideal that students should suffer no loss of quality or access to their learning materials

regardless of their location and that their learning environment should remain consistent regardless of

context (Wheeler, 2007). Therefore many universities feel that they are now obliged to offer support

and networked resources to nomadic learners to facilitate any time, any place learning. This may

require the provision of mobile devices such as the cellular phone, pervasive digital services, laptop

and palmtop computers and wider access to social software tools. The distinct lack of studies in the

academic literature indicates that such initiatives are slow to be implemented within universities. In

nomadic learning personalised study becomes a key objective, and this can be achieved regardless of

spatial or temporal constraints, but only if institutions implement it for all who require it. Naturally

many institutions aspire to providing such services for their student populations, but in reality, cost

and security issues militate against this idea, and a cultural dissonance often constrains full provision

(Bell & Bell, 2005).

The most intractable problem appears to be the latter. A tension often exists between the culture of the

institutional Learning Management System (LMS) promulgated by the institution, and the culture of

the student led personalised learning environment (PLE). The former is often imposed upon all

learners whilst the latter becomes a peripheral, self-electing and informalised learning tool. The

university favours a centralised and secure system for obvious reasons, not least because it must

protect its technical infrastructure and ensure that only bona fide students and staff have access to its

resources and systems.

Universities opt for the LMS for the convenience of operation, security and control. Culley (2006)

identifies a number of features that are made available for all users including the management of

access through authentication (login, password), support through help pages and FAQ areas, authoring

and information tools (news and course announcements), and a number of communication tools

(synchronous and asynchronous, including e-mail, discussion boards and chat areas).

In addition the LMS offers tutors a number of beneficial features such as user access management,

system management tools, the ability to track student progress, a range of assessment tools, and other

administrative applications. The LMS offers several useful features to the student including a number

of self-assessment tools such as online quizzes, online support including access to specialised input

from tutors and communication with peer group, learning management tools and personalised access

to learning resources. Nevertheless, as we have already seen, students are spending a great deal of

their time, and in large numbers, using free, unstructured and informalised extra-institutional web

spaces.

LMS VS. SOCIAL NETWORKING

The Learning Management System is not always popular with students, for a number of reasons.

Students report that they experience difficulties with technical issues (Weller, et al 2005), lack of

13

familiarity with the system (McGill & Hobbs, 2007), and discussion overload (Kear & Heap, 2007),

and this is not an exhaustive list. Furthermore, the LMS is facing competition for student ‘online

time’ from a more attractive and rapidly growing rival, social networking. Where the LMS invariably

has the appearance of an institutional system through its branded logo, controlled log-in and

passwords, uninspiring topography and bland presentation, the more popular social networking tools

such as MySpace and Flickr are more colourful and attractive, can be more or less tailored to personal

preferences, and are beyond the control and surveillance of the university. There is a view by some

academics that social networking sites cannot and should not be used to deliver formalised delivery of

learning, because students are not there to learn. They are there to connect, gossip and share with

others who have a similar outlook and interests in life. However, some intrepid teachers are already

using these tools to create fertile spaces within which learning can be conducted. It remains to be seen

whether such initiatives will be successful, but it is important to understand the underlying principles

which cause the divide between the LMS and the social networking site. Significantly, the network

generation has embedded itself into social sites where they are at liberty to create, publish, appropriate

and redistribute content unchecked. Craig (2007) believes that younger students will find the

structures of the LMS too traditional and inflexible when compared to the libertarian user-generated

features of social networking tools. This he suggests, represents a fundamental shift in the experience

of using digital environments which will necessitate a radical rethinking of the underlying architecture

of the LMS approach (Craig, 2007). Others concur that today’s generation of students expect and seek

out highly interactive experiences, involving muti-tasking, self-selection of learning material and fast-

moving engagement with their enviroment which centres upon play, user-generation of content and

collaboration (Prensky, 2001; Veen & Vrakking, 2006). We might conclude that the insitutional LMS

is simply failing to keep pace which the new demands from the network generation, so students are

migrating to social networking sites to supplement their on-line experiences.

Social networking tools such as Bebo and MySpace are popular with students because they are free,

attractive in appearance, are personalisable, and are easy to use. Because students perceive them to be

beyond the control of the institution, they will often use them in an anarchical manner, with little

thought for the consequences of pictures or comments they post. However, many prospective

admission tutors and employers are now checking out social networking sites to discover details about

applicants, so the dangers of wanton posting are becoming ever more manifest.

HOW HAVE LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BEEN USED?

The Learning Management System, (sometimes referred to as the MLE - managed learning

environment, or erroneously as the VLE – virtual learning environment) is an important component in

the institutional e-learning strategy. Several proprietary LMS platforms have been marketed over the

last few years, including BlackBoard, WebCT, Boddingtons and more recently, Fronter. Several open

source options are also available, the most popular of which is Moodle. Evaluations of a variety of

applications of the LMS can be found, and the literature is extensive. Learning management systems

have been used successfully in a number of contexts in higher education. One study showed that in an

LMS, tasks are divided, with tutors principally involved in organisational tasks, whilst students

communicate mostly at content-related and interpersonal levels (Gerber et al, 2008). The same study

revealed that students' own content-related and interpersonal messages had a positive impact on their

learning performances (Gerber et al, 2008). A study at the University of Birmingham found that the

LMS was effective in enabling medical students to bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice

through the use of blended delivery of learning (Davies et al, 2005). Research at the University of

Manchester showed the importance of blended delivery for the student teachers, with the LMS

delivering a balanced programme that effectively supporting skills and knowledge acquisition. This

14

enabled students to reflect on past practice and plan for future professional engagement (Motteram,

2006). Most universities employ a mix of synchronous and asynchronous communication to facilitate

discussion, collaboration and the giving of feedback, considering these approaches to facilitate more

inclusive education (Cox et al, 2004).

It is evident that the vast majority of UK education institutions have implemented campus-wide

learning management systems, but in the long term, this may prove to be problematic. The current

economic stringency has caused many universities to be circumspect. Many see a widening of the

traditional catchment area as a route to increased productivity through higher student numbers. There

is a widespread belief that distance education, and in its blended form, e-learning, are an apposite

means of achieving this objective. In their quest to secure strong market positions, there is evidence to

suggest that many UK universities are buying into proprietary delivery platforms that are difficult to

use (Bridge & Appleyard, 2005; Weller et al, 2005), expensive to maintain (Forsyth, 2003) and

unattractive to a generation of students who have grown up in the social web era (McPherson &

Nunes, 2004). The most prevalent problem reported by most studies however, was slow (or no) access

to the learning materials that had been placed on the LMS (Clarke et al, 2005; Bell & Bell, 2005;

Baird et al, 2006). Yet as we have seen, in many ways the use of institutional platforms to support

electronic delivery tends to work counter to the ideals of student centredness and learner autonomy.

PERSONALISED LEARNING AND SOCIAL SOFTWARE

It is abundantly clear that we are witnessing a rapid proliferation of social software tools on the Web.

Almost every day somewhere in the press and media we are able to read accounts of triumphs and

disasters about FaceBook, MySpace or YouTube and hear stories about blogging or podcasting. These

are some of the more popular ‘Web 2.0’ tools, yet they are merely the tip of the social software

iceberg. Many of the younger students in UK universities are regular users of social networking, and

there is an obvious reason for its popularity. They use FaceBook and similar tools to keep in regular

contact with their circle of friends, and they use YouTube to broadcast their amateur videos. Blogs

are personalised online diaries in which the author can tell a potential worldwide audience about their

lives, personal hobbies and share their views. Photo sharing facilities such as Flickr and Picasa enable

users to create online photo albums. One common feature of all of these tools is the ability to send and

receive feedback through comment boxes. Social sites offer a richness of social contact through easy

to use web features, enabling people to personalise their chosen space, and herein lies a clue to the

rapid growth in their popularity.

iGoogle is another popular tool that allows students to personalize their desktop. iGoogle enables

users to personalise their desktop computer, and creates a seamless interface with the I nternet, in

what has become known by some as the ‘webtop’. Users can generate a series of tabs which open up

into extra spaces to store useful bookmarks and hyperlinks, utilities that report local weather, currency

conversion tools, translation tools, in fact almost anything the student might need to succeed in study.

PERSONALISED LEARNING VS. THE MANAGED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

In Carl Rogers seminal work ‘Freedom to Learn’, several key student centred principles were

espoused. Not least of these was the student’s right to choose what, where and when s/he was

studying (Rogers, 1994). The concept of personalised learning begins to fulfil this humanistic ideal.

PLEs locate the student at the heart of the process, taking into account their individual styles,

preferences and interests. Personalised learning also accommodates the student’s individual learning

trajectory, including choice of topics, preferred pace and place of study. By their very nature however,

15

individual learning trajectories tend to run counter to the regimented approaches adopted by most

institutes.

Learning Management Systems are the antithesis of PLEs. They are designed to formally manage the

learning process throughout an entire programme of study. The LMS commonly houses a number of

functions including content management, student tracking, assessment management and secure

access. Notwithstanding, several criticisms have been levelled at the learning management system e-

learning approach. de Freitas (2007) suggests that although extensive and sustained effort has been

invested into the development of the LMS, less attention has been paid to content development and

the models employed to embed content into practice. Subsequently, she laments the significant lack

of e-learning models and the dearth of pedagogical designs that align content delivery to learning

outcomes (Mayes & de Freitas, 2004).

Universities deem it important to maintain governance over the learning process by closely managing

the delivery of content, the tracking of student, and control over access. The implementation of a

secure digital learning environment is therefore considered expedient. Universities need to control

access, delivery and management of student activities, monitoring progress and generating reports of

achievement, so that education is delivered in a cost effective and efficient way. In past eras, this has

been achieved through the standard lecture and/or demonstration, and subsequent seminars and

tutorials, which synchronise place and time, but do not take account of individual differences. The

contemporary analogy to the lecture/seminar is the Learning Management System in which activities

and content are synchronised and centralised, and where little acknowledgement is made of individual

needs and preferences. It would appear then , that the two approaches are incompatible. We should be

aware however, that the two approaches actually fulfil different learning needs.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE WITH PERSONALISED LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS

Flexible and user friendly tools of the social networking and iGoogle kind attract students into

creating their own PLEs, and repel them away from the rather inconvenient and unattractive

institutional LMS. Yet, ultimately, the PLE cannot replace the LMS in its functionality any more than

the LMS can be personalised to the extent students would desire. It is the contention of this author that

a mix of the best features of both PLE and LMS will need to be present in a blended online learning

environment. Students will need to gather and maintain a cache of useful tools, links and resources

that are relevant and necessary for their programme of study. They will also need easy, but secure

access to a number of institutional services such as tutor support, mentoring and guidance, online

accreditation of work, formalised assessment, and of course connections with other students that are

not possible within social networking realms. Outside of the LMS, they can continue to informally

learn and communicate, and in effect maintain two digital identities – those of the formal LMS learner

and the informal web explorer.

UK RESEARCH CONCLUSION

There is clearly much effort being made to develop learning management systems that can provide

learning opportunities to difficult to reach students. Many UK institutions are now moving beyond the

initially piece-meal applications of e-learning toward more coherent campus-wide systems

implementation. Mobile and nomadic students are a growing client population, and will need to be

considered by senior managers in any future implementation. It is evident that there is a clash of

cultures between the structured, managed online learning environments deployed by universities, and

the freeform, unstructured social spaces preferred by many students. Cultural change is exerted at all

16

levels when new technologies are introduced, but change will only be successful where it is managed

and supported at all levels and for all stakeholders. Notwithstanding, many students seem to reject or

at least tacitly adopt institutional systems, but there is growing evidence that they prefer to use social

networking tools that are beyond the reach of the university. It is highly likely that a compromise will

be required if blended technology supported learning is to improve its track record. Future

deployments of online learning environments are likely to have elements of both systems within the

architecture of the LMS.

REFERENCES

Attwell, G. (2005). E-learning and sustainability. EdTechPost: Technology for Learning, Thinking

and Collaborating. Retrieved August 17, 2006 from

http://www.ossite.org/Members/GrahamAttwell/sustainibility/attach/sustainibility4.doc

Baird, I., Peacock, D., Dobbins, S. & Walton, G. (2006) Exploring health pre-registration students use

of learning resources whilst on clinical placement: Replication of case study at Northumbria and

Teesside Universities, UK. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 23 (4), 286-290.

Bell, M. & Bell, W. (2005) It's installed ... now get on with it! Looking beyond the software to the

cultural change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (4), 643-656.

Bersin & Associates (2003). Blended Learning: what works? Retrieved February 4, 2008 from

http://www.e-learningguru.com/wpapers/blended_bersin.doc

Bouvin, N. O., Christensen, B. G., Hansen, F. A., & Nielsen, K. L. (2005). Supporting mobile and

nomadic learning. In WWW '05: Workshop Proceedings of the 14th international conference on

World Wide Web. Available at: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/article/bouvin05supporting.html

Retrieved 19 March, 2008.

Bridge, P. & Appleyard, R. (2005) System failure: A comparison of electronic and paper-based

assignment submission, marking, and feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36

(4), 669-671.

Chandra, V. & Lloyd, M. (2008) The methodological nettle: ICT and student achievement. British

Journal of Educational Technology. 39(6), 1087-1098.

Clarke, A., Lewis, D., Cole, I. & Ringrose, L. (2005) A strategic approach to developing e-learning

capability for healthcare. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 22 (2), 33-41.

Collins, B., & Van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education: an

international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher education

(Technical Report). Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente, Center for Higher

Education Policy Studies.

Concannon, F., Flynn, A. & Campbell, M. (2005) What campus-based students think about the quality

and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (3), 501-512.

Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004) Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two

blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20 (3), 183–193.

Craig, E. M. (2007) Changing paradigms: Managed learning environments and Web 2.0. Campus

Wide Information Systems, 24 (3), 152-161.

Cross, J. (2005). Informal Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publications.

17

Culley, A. (2006) Learning Management Systems. Available at:

http://www.instructionaldesign.com.au Retrieved 11 March, 2008.

Daniel, J. S. (1996) Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Technology Strategies for Higher

Education. London: Routledge.

Davies, H.C., & Fill, K. (2007). Embedded blended learning in university’s teaching culture:

experiences and reflections. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14600/

Ecipa (2005) BrainFrame: le tecnologie dell’informazione e della comunicazione nel sistema

della Formazione Professionale, Verona, Italy: Ecipa 2005.

Davies, A., Ramsay, J., Lindfield, H. & Couperthwaite, J. (2005) A blended approach to learning:

added value and lessons learnt from students' use of computer-based materials for neurological

analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (5), 839–849.

Elliot, B. (2008). E-pedagogy: does e-learning require a new approach to teaching and learning?

Retrieved February 4, 2008 http://d.scribd.com/docs/22rc8wz72z067xrb1fpk.pdf.

Fill, K. (2006a) Quality versus time: a rationale for blended learning? British Educational Research

Association Conference. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/157113.htm.

Fill, K. (2006b) Refreshed and reflective: the impact of an eLearning project on university teachers.

Proceedings of the First International Conference on eLearning, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved

June 18, 2007 from http://www.academic-conferences.org/icel/icel-proceedings/proceedings-

icel06.htm.

Freitas, S. (2007) Post-16 e-learning content production: A synthesis of the literature, British Journal

of Educational Technology. 38 (2), 349-364.

Forsyth, R. (2003) Supporting e-learning: an overview of the needs of users. New Review of Academic

Librarianship, 9 (1), 131-140.

Gerber, M., Grund, S. & Grote, G. (2008) Distributed collaboration activities in a blended learning

scenario and the effects on learning performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 4(3),

232-244.

Harasim, L.M., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning network: a field guide to

teaching and learning online. London: The MIT Press.

Hill, C. (2008) Teaching with e-learning in the Lifelong Learning Sector (Second Edition). Exeter:

Learning Matters.

Howell, S.L., Williams, P.B., Lindsay, N.K., & Laws R.D. (2004). Trends affecting Distance

Education and Distance Learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.

Retrieved 2005, from http://www.teenet.net/thirtytwotrends.htm.

Kear, K.L. & Heap, N. W. (2007) ‘Sorting the wheat from the chaff’: Investigating overload in

educational discussion systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 23 (3), 235-247.

Kearsley, G., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). Preparing teachers to teach online. Educational Technology,

44(1), 49-52.

Ligorio, M.B. & van der Meijden, H. (2008) Teacher guidelines for cross-national virtual

communities in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24 (1), 11–25

18

MacDonald, J. (2004). Developing competent e-learners: the role of assessment. Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(2), 34-41.

Mayes, T. & Freitas, S. (2004) Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models: JISC e-

learning models desk study. Cited in de Freitas, S. (2007) Post-16 e-learning content

production: A synthesis of the literature. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (2),

349-364.

McCracken, J., & Dobson, M. (2004). Blended Learning Design. In V. Uskov (Ed.), Proceedings of

the Seventh IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in

Education (pp. 37-48), Kauai, Hawaii, USA.

McGill, T. J. & Hobbs, V. J. (2007) How students and instructors using a virtual learning environment

perceive the fit between technology and task. British Journal of Educational Technology, doi:

10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00253.x

McPherson, M. & Nunes, M. B. (2004) The failure of a virtual social space (VSS) designed to create a

learning community: Lessons learned. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35 (3), 305-

321.

Motteram, G. (2006) 'Blended' education and the transformation of teachers: a long-term case study in

postgraduate UK Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37 (1), 17–30.

Nichols, M. (2008) Institutional perspectives: The challenges of e-learning diffusion. British Journal

of Educational Technology, 34(4) 598-609.

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital game based learning. New York: McGraw Hill.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5) 1-6.

Rogers, C. (1994) Freedom to Learning (3rd Edition). New York: Merrill.

Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Selwyn, N., Gorard, S. & Furlong, J. (2006) Adult learning in the digital age: Information technology

and the learning society. London: Routledge.

Seufert, S., & Euler, D. (2003). Sustainability of eLearning innovations: findings of expert interviews.

Retrieved December 3, 2004 from: http://www.scil.ch/publications/docs/2003-06-seufert-euler-

sustainability-elearning.pdf.

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Trentin, G. (2004) E-learning and the third age. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20 (1), 21–30

Trentin, G. (2006). The Xanadu Project: training faculty in the use of ICT for university teaching.

International Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 182-196.

Trentin, G. (2007). A multidimensional approach to e-learning sustainability. Educational

Technology, 47(5), 36-40.

Trentin, G. (2008). TEL and university teaching: different approaches for different purposes.

International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 117-132.

Varis, T (2004). Social perspective of e-learning in the national education system. Revista de

Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC), 1(1). Retrieved January 13, 2008 from

http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/dt/eng/varis0704.pdf.

19

Veen, W. & Vrakking, B. (2006) Homo Zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. London: Continuum.

Weller, M., Pegler, C. & Mason, R. (2005) Students' experience of component versus integrated

virtual learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 21 (4), 253-259.

Wheeler, S. (2005) British distance education: A proud tradition. In Y. Visser, L. Visser and M.

Simonson (Eds) Trends and Issues in Distance Education: An International

Perspective. Greenwich, Connecticut, USA: Information Age Publishers.

Wheeler, S. (2007) Something wiki this way cometh: Evaluating open architecture software

as support for nomadic learning . Paper presented at the EDEN 2007 Annual Conference,

Citta della Scienza, Naples, Italy. 13-16 June.

White, S. (2006). Critical success factors for institutional change: some organisational perspectives.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 840-850.

Zemsky, R., & Massy, W.F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: what happened to e-learning and why.

Final Report for The Weatherstation Project of the Learning Alliance at University of

Pennsylvania. Retrieved February 27, 2005 from http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/

WeatherStation_Report.pdf.

i The percentages that follow refer only to the teachers who declared that they used interpersonal

communication services in their teaching activities, i.e. 81% of the whole sample. ii The percentages that follow refer only to the teachers who declared that they used blended solutions in their

teaching activities, i.e. 22% of the whole sample. iii In our research, before starting the teachers’ training stage, only 12% of them had declared (and shown) that

they had enough knowledge of instructional design and most of them came from the Faculty of Educational

Sciences and Teacher Education.