Running head: CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

Considerations in the Move from a Face to Face to a Blended Classroom

Rod Miller
Vancouver Island University
OLTD 510
Capstone Assignment

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

Abstract
This paper will explore some of the factors that face to face teachers will need to take into
account when considering a transition in their teaching from a traditional classroom environment
to a blended learning environment. Blended courses are classes where a portion of the traditional
face-to-face instruction is replaced by web-based online learning. Considerations such as
pedagogy, platforms, tools, infrastructure, privacy, engagement, training and assessment will be
discussed. The ideas discussed here could make a useful checklist when looking to add online
teaching components to a traditional face to face classroom structure.

Keywords: blended learning environment, pedagogy, face to face classroom

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

The new BC Education Plan (2015) denotes a shift in the educational policy which
focuses on individualized learning and choice. This has opened the door for many educators to
pursue a blended learning approach for their students. The new plans vision is to have capable
young people thriving in a rapidly changing world. In order to achieve this, Minister Fassbender
(2015) states, we need an education system that better engages students in their own learning and
that fosters the skills and competencies they will need to succeed. The focus for this
transformation is the movement to increasingly personalized learning, which is enabled and
supported by quality teaching and learning, flexibility and choice, and high standards. Many see
this new direction as the perfect fit for blended learning which enhances the flexibility of the
traditional face to face classroom. While blended learning is gaining popularity, there are many
factors that educator should take into account before committing to transitioning to a blended
learning environment.
Platform
One of the major considerations that are often overlooked by a teacher considering the
move to a blended learning environment is choosing a platform in which they will use as the
central hub of their program. Many online neophytes underestimate the importance of having
their course housed in a robust, central location. There are two schools of thought around how
information should be disseminated to students and in return, how students demonstrate their
learning. The most common to date is the Learning Management System (LMS), of which there
are many. Desire2Learn (D2L), Moodle and Collaborate, have been the standard in recent years.
However, there is another school of thought which says Personal Learning Environments (PLEs)

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

are the future of online education. There seems to be a divide amongst online educators as to
which is best suited for the task.
PLE advocates stress the need for flexibility with regard to the web 2.0 tools students can
choose from and point to LMSs inability to seamlessly incorporate web 2.0 tools.
Learning Management Systems (LMS) are incapable of delivering many of the
interactive web 2.0 features to learners. However, Personal Learning Environments (PLE)
enables learners to organize their learning, provides the freedom to choose content, and
allows communication and collaboration with others easily. In addition, PLEs enable
learners to continue learning after formal courses have ended and lifelong learning
possible. (Kesim and Altinpulluk, 2013)
Part of what makes PLEs flexible, is the fact that they can be used for formal as well as informal
learning, sharing, communicating and collaborating with others. There are a large number of web
2.0 tools that would be of use to students allowing them to customize their learning. Delicious,
Connotea, CiteULike and Diigo can be used for sharing sources. Social networks such as
Facebook, Twitter and blogs are a standard component of many students daily lives. These types
of sites are the backbone of PLEs, and thus integral in the creation of a learning community as
they provided a forum for both synchronous and asynchronous communication. They are tools
familiar to students and a natural extension from their everyday lives. Those that espouse the use
of PLEs stress the importance of this built in flexibility.
Ebner 2011) states, one of the goals is that students are able to adapt the learning
environment to their preferences, so that they can make their own decisions on which
applications they want to use and integrate into their environment. By the same token,

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

each application or service that is integrated into a PLE should be flexibly configurable
to meet the individual needs of the student.
Many believe that flexibility and choice are the driving principles behind the shift to the PLE
thus allowing students to customize their learning environment with the tools that best suit their
own needs and learning styles.
While PLEs have their advocates, they are not without their drawbacks. A PLE is based
on the self-directed learning approach and the process of self-directed learning requires a degree
of self-discipline on behalf of the learner and an understanding of their own learning needs.
Diaz et al (2015) explains that the process of self-directed learning requires a degree of
self-awareness, and it must be given time to mature. Some students, however, may
have never taken the time to think about their own metacognition or to reflect on how
they learn best. These less experienced students may not be ready for the responsibility
that comes with building and managing a PLE.
In this regard, it is incumbent upon the teacher to have an understanding of his students
academic maturity and tailor the learning platform to ensure a successful learning environment
for all students, regardless of ability.
While the freedom to construct an individualized learning environment has many
benefits, there is also a need for caution as many students of the digital age are very much
consumers of information. The problem being the flood of online information, this has a very
real chance of becoming superfluous and overwhelming, without the limitations of a filter such
as an LMS. A common problem for PLEs is the amount of data gathered within a short time
span. Depending on the type of widget that is integrated into a PLE and the number of people

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

adding content to the widget, an enormous amount of information can be collected, which may
have an overwhelming effect on the user (Ebner 2011).
Another stumbling point when considering using the PLE approach is the hesitance of
some administrations to allow social networking tools into the classroom. Kesim and Altinpulluk
(2013) state, administrators of educational institutions have a negative perception regarding the
internet, social networks and online learning. Additionally, these administrators hesitate to
implement new concepts and theories such as PLE and connectivism. This echoes many
concerns educators face around online education and the use of social networking in an
education setting. These concerns are still pervasive and often a hurdle that needs to be overcome
before the idea of PLEs can become mainstream.
However, in recent years many school boards have moved forward in their
implementation of online and blended environments and this trend has been met with some
success. Cavanaugh and Jacquemin (2015) echo this trend by stating that historically many
institutions met online education with resistance but over the past 10 years, the percentage of
academic leaders that rate the quality of online classes equivalent or higher than face-to-face
classes has steadily increased from about 52% to 77%. As facilitators become better versed in the
development of blended environments and the tools continue to become increasingly flexible and
accommodating, this trend should continue.
Ideally a blending of the two models is preferable in that there is a central hub (LMS) to
organize the learning environment, and personalized components (PLE) that students can use to
customize their own learning experience. LMS systems such as Canvas, now allow the seamless
incorporations of apps into the management system itself. In this way the instructor can create a

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

learning environment that is well structured, but also has the flexibility to enable students to
choose the tools that best fit their needs.
Whether choosing a PLE or a LMS, one must remember that blended learning
environments are also unique in that they possess both a synchronous and asynchronous
component. This means the educator needs to be aware of the two components and develop their
chosen mode of instruction that it best suits the needs of all parties. Teachers must also have the
necessary skills to be effective in both environments. Most face to face teachers have had years
to hone their skills in the synchronous classroom setting, but that does not mean they have the
unique skills to be effective in an asynchronous online environment.
According to Anderson (2004) one must have the ability to support content
encapsulated in many formats, including multimedia, video, and text, which gives access
to learning content that exploits all media attributes, as well as, the capacity to support
human and machine interaction in a variety of formats (text, speech, video, etc.) in both
asynchronous and synchronous modalities creating a communications-rich learning
context.
As stated above, the communication aspect is also an important feature of the LMS or
PLE, because the development of a social community, regardless of format, is important and the
ability of students to interact with facilitators and peers is crucial. The ability to communicate in
a timely and efficient manner, both synchronously and asynchronously, can foster the learning
community and facilitate collaboration and sense of community.

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

Pedagogy
With online education becoming more prevalent in our schools, many teachers
examining their own pedagogy with respect to this new environment. With the increasing use of
the digital world in mainstream academic settings, the huge financial commitment institutions
and districts have made with regard to technology and its required infrastructure, many teachers
feel pressured to use these new tools in their classrooms. While their intentions may be good,
what is required is not simply a lesson that has students using the internet or a tablet, but a
pedagogical shift that has the online environment as a meaningful component of the students
education. This can be a difficult process for many, especially for those not of the digital age.
According to Vaughan (2010), some academics fail to make a transformational shift in their
approach to teaching from one of disseminating information to one of creating learning
environments where students co-construct knowledge through interactions. These educators are
under pressure to re-examine their philosophy and their pedagogy.
For educators looking to move into the online world, it is important to understand that a
blended learning environment is not simply a collection of classroom lessons that are accessible
online. The shift from the traditional to the digital is often a difficult transition for many
educators, not only pedagogically, but also in the way their classes are structured. The replication
of traditional methods does not capitalize on the dynamic nature of a technologically enhanced
teaching and learning environment. (Redmond, 2011)
The switch to a blended learning environment can also mean a reduction in the direct
control a teacher has in the dissemination of and collection of information. This means teachers
must be willing to turn over a portion of the control when deciding how students are to receive

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

information and more importantly, how students are to convey their learning to their peers and
the instructor. The move from instructor to facilitator is essential, but the release of control can
be a difficult, but critical step for some and one that requires a change in mindset. According to
Vaughan et al (2013) one of the principles in the construction of a successful blended learning
environment sees the reduction in teacher presence and encourages students to assume greater
responsibility and control of their educational experience. To achieve success online, students
need to accept responsibility for their own learning so that it becomes a shared, knowledgebuilding constructivist experience. Depending on the given teachers own philosophies around
teaching and learning, losing the spotlight or the sage on the stage aspect of their teaching
methods can make for a difficult and uneasy transition. This shift can also be a difficult one for
students as the teacher becomes more of a facilitator than a leader. Labonte (2011) believes that
as teachers become moderators, or facilitators, of co-learning opportunities, both teachers and
students may have difficulty assimilating into these new roles, as the resultant paradigm shift is
significant.
Tools
Choosing the tools to facilitate the blended learning environment should not be taken
lightly. Whether using a LMS or the more flexible PLE, there are several factors that need to be
considered when developing an online community of learners. Many educators simply choose
what they are familiar with, or wedge the tools their district may have a license for into their
plans. While this may be practical, it may not be in the students best interests. Teachers need to
be willing to stretch their own learning and perhaps move out of their comfort zone to use new
tools that are effective and appropriate for the given course and the student composition.

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

Bates has developed a model that is useful when deciding which tools to select for an
online learning environment. He refers to it as the SECTIONS model which is an
acronym: Students, Ease of use, Cost, Teaching, Interaction, Organizational issues,
Novelty and Security. In a recent interview he describes it as a complex decisionmaking process. There are so many tools out there. We really need to be more
sophisticated with our use of technology than weve been. That means thinking about a
lot of factors when making that choice. How will this technology benefit the students?
Does it make learning more accessible for the students? Does it increase their
flexibility? What kind of students are you reaching or, more importantly, could you
reach who youre not reaching already with this technology? I dont believe theres any
intrinsic value in using a technology just because its a technology. (2012)
Technology for technology sake is a trap that many teachers, excited about the possibilities new
technology can bring to their classroom, may fall into and want to be mindful of when
developing a list of tools that can help facilitate online learning.
Engagement
Many face to face teachers have developed their teaching to ensure student engagement
in the traditional classroom; however these methods may not transfer to the digital world. This
means that teachers planning the move to a blended approach must be willing to dedicate a
significant portion of time to developing new skills and methods, as well as monitor student
activity and engagement online. Simply moving lessons to a blended approach, which
incorporates digital components, does not guarantee student engagement. Therefore, there must
be adequate and meaningful methods of communication between student and facilitator to ensure

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

students are more than simply interactive participants. Schwier (2009) speaks to the difference
between participation and engagement by stating, participation does not equal engagement for
learners, and while interaction is visible, engagement is hidden. As a facilitator, monitoring the
difference between participation and engagement can be a time consuming and difficult task, but
one that is important, as engagement can be the impetus for a shift in the attitude toward
learning. Many first time online teachers can be thwarted by the unexpected drain on time that is
required to effectively monitor meaningful engagement of students in an online environment.
While participation alone does not make a class meaningful, it is essential that students
are initially willing to participate in order to achieve engagement. In order to make participation
more likely, educators have turned to the tools that students use in their everyday lives as the
hook. Social networking is a key element in many students daily lives and should be a part of
any blended environment. The familiarity with these environments will help facilitate the
participation of student. A study by Luo, Tian, Gao and Fei, (2012) showed that students who
would not normally participate in class are more apt to partake through social network services.
Networking allows participants the opportunity for just-in-time learning and higher levels of
engagement. The idea of using social networking as part of their course design can be a nonstarter for some academics and is an important point to consider before committing to the online
environment where social networks are pervasive and in many instances, expected by digital age
students.
Safety and Privacy
The use of many social networks can raise safety and privacy concerns for some and
these can also be a limiting factor when it comes to online education. These concerns can be

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

generated from administration around student safety and privacy or the teacher's own reticence to
take on the legal ramifications associated with FIPPA (Freedom of Privacy and Protection Act,
1996). Many teachers with limited technology skills are in the avoidance area that Hengstler
(2014) has outlined in her Compliance Continuum1. Her research has shown that many teachers
work in the ignorance or avoidance realms of the Compliance Continuum which can be a
dangerous place to be operating from. Because student safety and privacy, especially in the K-12
setting, is essential it is of utmost importance that educators take this into account and are
prepared to make a course that is structured and prepared with these considerations at the
forefront. Hengstler (2013) states that educators must also be diligent and make sure that no
indication of personal and identifiable information is hidden in data, like embedded code or in a
file name, etc. Technical jargon such as this can often cause many to abandon their aspirations of
moving online, as many teachers or administrators would simply not know what that meant and
feeling unprepared or ill-informed would likely shelve the idea. It is incumbent upon teachers to
become familiar with the mandates in FIPPA and their own districts policies around the use of
online tools and various social media platforms before developing their own blended learning
environment. Many educators are unsure of the requirements for social media use, the legal
aspects have them terrified and their lack of technical knowledge leaves them unsure of what
they are responsible for and how to go about providing a safe online environment.

Hengstler theorizes a continuum of 6 compliance positions for educators (Avoidance,

Ignorance, Knowledgeable Non-Compliance, Approaching Compliance, Establishing
Compliance, & Full Compliances) with regard to the application of British Columbias (Canada)
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) in regard to social media use.
1

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

It is important for districts to have a clearly stated online policy that is in accordance with
FIPPA (1996) regulations and that these policies and expectations are clearly relayed to all
teachers. This would go a long way to alleviate some of the unknowns and to ensure proper use.
Allowing those that are reticent about having students be online to take the first steps to include a
new learning resource, whether it be social media or otherwise.
Training
While many districts and institutions have made the commitment to technology and
online learning, the rapid evolution of the online world and continued development of digital
tools means teachers can often feel that they do not have sufficient training in the new
technology and tools made available to them. That being said, training should not only
encompass the various aspects of the online world, but also the training around the legal
ramifications of not being fully FIPPA (1996) compliant. By having the necessary information
and knowledge, educators can move forward feeling confident in their own abilities. This will
also help move the hesitance forward in their pursuit of a blended learning environment.
Collaboration with more experienced colleagues is also a vital component for those new to many
of the effective tools available online. The key issue here is that if you dont have a systematic,
comprehensive training program for faculty, then working in a team is critical if youre going to
use technology well (Bates 2102). Many educators often overlook the most valuable resource at
their disposal, their colleagues.
Assessment
While traditional face to face assessment is well developed, coming to terms with how to
assess effectively online can be difficult. Teachers must be able to collect assignments and

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

distribute marks, both formative and summative, in a timely manner. This often requires the use
of new tools that can be seamlessly meshed with an online environment. Developing competency
with these new tools can be a time consuming task. Blended learning relies on the collaboration
between students. Many teachers may already incorporate collaborative learning in their face to
face classes, however this is usually in a synchronous environment and easily observable. In a
blended approach, the collaboration often occurs in an asynchronous setting making its
assessment far more difficult, but because collaboration is a key component to blended learning
assessment is crucial.
Many theoretical and empirical analyses emphasize the importance of active
participation and collaboration among students in promoting the effectiveness of online
learning. However, in most online courses, traditional instructor-centered examination
remains the primary means for assessing student performance, and collaborative
learning is undervalued and so marginalized. In a large part, this is because the
assessment of collaboration requires a radical rethinking of assessment methodologies.
(Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S. R., 2006)
Teachers must be willing to take on this rethink and be committed to developing new assessment
strategies which may require a time commitment and the acquisition of new skills and tools on
their part.
Infrastructure
Perhaps the greatest limiting factor in the move to a blended or online environment is the
state of the infrastructure within the physical environment. Many schools are fighting to keep
their heads above water fiscally and this often means teachers are working with outdated and in

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

some instances archaic technology. In order for any program to succeed, the technology must be
able to support a fully functioning digital environment. Students and staff need an infrastructure
that supports the streaming of audio and video as well, as maintains a reliable wireless source
that can accommodate mobile devices. If students encounter frustrations with the basic
functionality of the program, then the effectiveness of the learning environment will be lost,
engagement and therefore learning will be diminished. Inadequate conditions are more prevalent
than many realize. According to a CDE (Center for Digital Education, 2013) survey on smart
infrastructure, only 31 percent of respondents said their school connectivity was good enough for
learning applications and the downloading of digital content, 28 percent of respondents said their
connectivity was adequate for online testing and assessment and 30 percent of respondents said
their connectivity meets their needs for video streaming.

In another CDE (2013) report on wireless connectivity in education, they state,

As K-12 and higher education institutions embrace mobile learning devices and
instructional technology to implement their vision for a 21st-century learning
environment, they are discovering that their networks arent quite ready for prime time.
A recent study among IT professionals revealed that 87 percent would need to upgrade
their infrastructure including wireless networks in order to incorporate more
instructional technology into the learning environment.
A wireless system that is taxed beyond its capabilities can be the Achilles tendon of many
aspiring to take their learning and teaching online.

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

Conclusion
Ultimately the considerations in the move to a blended learning environment are many
and varied. Any educator considering this shift needs to analyze all the components before
committing to what is a rather substantial shift in not only pedagogy, but in knowledge and skill
set as well. While many of the components of a successful online learning environment are
within the educators realm of control, a few such as district support, safety and privacy policies,
training and infrastructure may not be .This can lead to considerable frustration. Teachers may
need to commit to proactive involvement to have some or all of these components addressed
before they begin the process of creating their blended course. Many are stymied by the
considerable time and effort required to make the shift, both pedagogically, technically and in
some instances policy wise, to an online or blended environment. Therefore the decision should
not be taken lightly. Creating an effective course of study often requires a paradigm shift and
with that the acquisition of new skills and knowledge before such an endeavor can begin.

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

References
Anderson, T. (2004, January 1). Teaching in an Online Learning Context. Retrieved May 3,
2015, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch11.html

Bates, T. (2012, July 31). Selecting Online Learning Technologies: An Interview with Tony
Bates. Retrieved May 3, 2015, from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/onlineeducation/selecting-online-learning-technologies-an-interview-with-tony-bates/

Cavanaugh, J., & Jacquemin, S. (2015). A Large Sample Comparison of Grade Based Student
Learning Outcomes in Online vs. Face-to-Face Courses. Online Learning, 19(2), 25-31.
Retrieved April 29, 2015, from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/
olj_main.

Diaz, V. et al, (2015, April 27). 7 Things You Should Read About Personalized Learning.
Retrieved May 1, 2015, from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7049.pdf

Ebner, M. (2011, January 1). First Steps towards an Integrated Personal Learning Environment at
the University Level. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.academia.edu/
2698913/

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

Fassbander, P. (2015). BC's Education Plan is based on a simple vision:. Retrieved May 16,


2015, from http://www.bcedplan.ca/

First_Steps_towards_an_Integrated_Personal_Learning_Environment_at_the_University_Level
Focus on learning. (2015, January 29). Retrieved May 3, 2015, from http://
www.bcedplan.ca/actions/flexibility.php *****

Hengstler, J. (2013). A K-12 primer for British Columbia teachers posting students' work online.
Retrieved from http://d2l.viu.ca/content/enforced/56545-EDUC_OLTD506_W70_F2014/
foundations_boundaries/Primer%20on%20Posting%20Minor%20Students%20Final.pdf?
_&d2lSessionVal=owuyDLquoQtQ2J6zxAKY6hzMV&ou=56545

Hengstler, J. (2014). "The Compliance Continuum: FIPPA & BC Educators". Retrieved from
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ridcqq14a7k9543

Kesim, M., & Altinpulluk, H. (2013, January 1). The Future Of LMS and Personal Learning
Environments. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.academia.edu/
5060712The_Future_Of_LMS_and_Personal_Learning_Environments

Labonte, R. 2011. Quality in E-learning: Engaging Learners. [online] [Accessed: 02 May 2015].

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

Luo, Tian, Gao, Fei (2012). "Enhancing Classroom Learning Experience by Providing Structures
to Microblogging Based Activities". Journal of Information Technical Education 11.

Redmond, Petrea (2011) From face-to-face teaching to online teaching: pedagogical transitions.
In: ASCILITE 2011: 28th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers
in Learning in Tertiary Education: Changing Demands, Changing Directions, 4-7 Dec
2011, Hobart, Australia.

Schwier, R.A. (2009, June). Pursuing the elusive metaphor of community in

virtual learning environments. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2009, Association for the
Advancement of Computers in Education,Honolulu, Hawaii

Smart Infrastructure. (2013). Retrieved May 6, 2015, from

http://www.google.ca/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=23&ved=0CFkQFjAMOAo&url=http://
a030f85c1e25003d7609-b98377aee968aad08453374eb1df3398.r40.cf2.rackcdn.com/
other/center-for-digital-education-smart-infrastructure-report.pdf&ei=WvhIVfGdAc

Vaughan, N. D. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement

and course redesign. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 60-65.

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE MOVE TO A BLENDED CLASSROOM

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in Blended Learning
Environments : Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry. Edmonton: AU Press.

Wireless connectivity in education - New Tools to Scale Wi-Fi Infrastructure for 21st-Century
Learning. (2013). Retrieved May 6, 2015, from http://www.google.ca/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDMQFjAE&url=http://
www.digitalairwireless.com/files/Education-Wireless-Connectivity