Blended Learning or E-learning?

Maryam Tayebinik
Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, Email: ttayebi@gmail.com

Marlia Puteh
Language Academy, Universiti Teknology Malaysia, KL Campus, Malaysia, Email: marlia@ic.utm.my

Abstract

ICT or Information and Communication Technology has pervaded the fields of education. In
recent years the term “e-learning” has emerged as a result of the integration of ICT in the
education fields. Following the application this technology into teaching, some pitfalls have been
identified and this have led to the “Blended learning” phenomenon. However, the preference on
this new method has been debated quite extensively. The aim of this paper is to investigate the
advantages of blended learning over face-to-face instruction through reviews of related literature.
The present survey revealed that blended learning is more favorable than pure e-learning and
offers many advantages for learners like producing a sense of community or belonging. This
study concludes that blended learning can be considered as an efficient approach of distance
learning in terms of students’ learning experience, student-student interaction as well as student-
instructor interaction and is likely to emerge as the predominant education model in the future.
Keywords- Blended learning; Online learning; Traditional learning; Educational settings.

1. Introduction and Background

“We are living in an ever-changing world” (Sethy, 2008, p.29). Through the past decades,
the world of education has been varied by the fast and rapid revolution in computer and the
Internet technologies which according to Sethy (2008) “new findings are generated and become
established at breathtaking speed” (p.29). This has revolutionized teaching and learning
particularly distance education. The arrival of World Wide Web (WWW) has increased the
demand for distance education and concepts like online learning or e- learning has emerged, as a
result. The system of online learning has been largely used in higher education, and a lot of
studies have been done to discover both its strengths and weaknesses (Wang, 2010).
 Since e-learning environments present some disadvantages such as inhibiting the
socialization process of individuals resulting in lack of face-to-face communication; a new
environment has surfaced. This new environment combines the e-learning and the classical
learning environments. It has been termed as blended learning, hybrid or mixed learning. The
foremost goal of blended instruction was to overwhelm drawbacks of pure online instruction.
Since either pure e-learning or traditional learning hold some weaknesses and strengths, it is
better to mix the strengths of both learning environments to develop a new method of delivery
called blended learning (Azizan, 2010). In view of that, the application of blended instruction has
quickly increased because instructors believe that varied delivery methods can increase students’
satisfaction from the learning experience as well as their learning outcomes (Lim, & Morris,
2009).

The following section provides extensive reviews of relevant literature about online and
blended learning. Different interpretations for the term “Blended Learning” and its usefulness
and effectiveness are further discussed.

2. What is blended?

The body of literature on blended learning proves that there is no unity on the definition of
blended learning. Driscoll (2002) defined blended learning as a combination of instructional
methods. On the contrary, Delialioglu and Yildirim (2007) claimed that systematic and strategic
combination of ICT tools into academic courses introduces a new way to approach instructional
goals. This instructional method has been given many names: blended learning, mediated
learning, hybrid instruction, web-assisted instruction or web-enhanced instruction. Delialioglu
and Yildirim (2007) and Gülbahar and Madran (2009) believed that blended learning is the same
as hybrid instruction, which combines the potentials of web-based training with those of
classroom techniques. Likewise, through their study on the transformational potential of blended
learning, Garrison and Kanuka (2004) found that blended learning environments seize the values
of traditional classes, which improve the effectiveness of meaningful learning experiences. In a
more conservative side, Bonk (2004, p.5) cited the three most common definitions of blended
learning:

1. A combination of instructional modalities (or delivery media)

2. A combination of instructional methods
3. A combination of online and face-to-face instruction
However, the third definition is mostly accepted by scholars. Picciano (2006), for
instance, declared that there are two significant elements in defining blended learning and those
are online and face-to-face instructions. Moreover, Rovai and Jordan (2004) claimed that
blended learning is a mixture of online learning and classroom that contain some of the facilities
of online courses with the presence of face-to-face communication. Other researchers believed
that the systems called blended learning integrates face-to-face instruction with computer
mediated one (Graham, 2006; Stubbs, Martin & Endlar, 2006; Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2006).

Figure 1. Blended Learning Environment

This study applies Colin and Moonen’s (2001) definition of blended learning i.e. “a hybrid of
traditional face-to- face and online learning so that instruction occurs both in the classroom and
online, and where the online component becomes a natural extension of traditional classroom
learning” (Colis & Moonen, 2001 cited in Rovai & Jordan, 2004, p.3 ).

3. Advantages of blended learning

Parallel with the growing use of ICT in the educational setting, blending learning approach
can be contributing tools to complete face to face experiences (Ginns & Ellis, 2009). Besides,
blended instruction offers an active learning environment with flexibility in using resources for
the students and provides more time for faculty members to spend with learners in small groups
or even individually (Oh & Park, 2009). In addition, blended learning has the potential to change
students’ experiences and outcomes through learning (Davis & Fill, 2007).
 Hameed, Badii, and Cullen (2008) in their study considered the efficiency of e-learning
when mixed with traditional learning; they concluded that blended learning approach provides
the most flexible method to e-learning.

Another advantage of blended learning environments is its potential to offer many

sources for learners. Azizan (2010) concluded that utilization of technology in physical
classrooms offer extra resources for the students and this is expected to enhance learners’
confidence and competence as well as improve the quality of learning. Chen and Jones (2007)
outlined other advantages of blended learning such as deep understanding of topics by using
web-based resources as well as active participation of students in class. Furthermore, online
learning engagement provides an interactive setting for communication among teachers and
students in the classroom and may facilitate cooperative activities even beyond the classrooms
(Yuen, 2010).

The above discussion has identified the major benefit of applying blended instruction i.e.
to overcome the shortcomings of online instruction and exploit various instructional process and
delivery strategies in order to increase learners’ satisfaction as well as boosting the learning
outcomes.

4. Blended learning in use

Harrington (2010) coined the combination of traditional classes with online ones as ‘hybrid
classroom’ and stressed that educators are increasingly engage in hybrid classes as they have
become aware of the benefits. Moreover, she emphasized that most EFL/ESL students enroll in
hybrid classes too.

Usta, and Özdemir (2007) studied students’ opinions about blended learning environment
and their findings proved that students have generally positive opinions about blended learning
environment. The results of the study also proved that high interaction between students and
instructor exist in this type of environment. This result supported the findings of Akkoyunlu and
Soylu (2006) which indicated high demands for face-to-face interaction in on line learning.

According to Owston et al. (2006, as cited in Bdawi, 2009) there are three rationales for
supporting blended learning: fulfilling the learner's needs and motivating critical thinking skills;
the flexibility of blended learning since the learning occurs online and face-to-face and its cost
effectiveness.

Dziuban, Hartman & Moskal (2004) in a three-year study between the face- to-face, fully
online, and blended teaching methods found that blended teaching always give better success
rates than the other two methods. Dowling, Godfrey & Gyles, (2003, as cited in Vignare et al.,
2005) investigated the association between students’ outcome and hybrid delivery. The results of
their study indicated a positive relationship between students’ final scores and improved learning
outcomes. Moreover, Gómez and Duart (2011) studied a hybrid postgraduate program in a
university in Colombia and concluded that students had a very positive opinion of the subjects
and the educational model in the program. Similarly, Tselios, Daskalakis, and Papadopoulou,
(2011) investigated Greek students’ views toward blended learning. The findings obtained
showed that both perceived usefulness and simplicity of use have a positive impact on attitude
toward using blended learning in the university. Regarding using digital communication tools,
Dzakiria, Mustafa and Abu Bakar (2006) claimed that the interaction between students and
lecturers as well as scholarly discussion both in synchronous or asynchronous video conference
is the privilege offered by blended learning application.

5. Sense of community in blended learning

Teachers and students communicate virtually via e-learning and this is the predominant
feature of such a learning process, different from traditional classes in which instructors and
learners engage in face-to-face interaction (Tayebinik, 2009). Generally, all the terms which
describe distance education via computer technology have a unique significance that is learning
takes place while teacher and learner are separated. It is assumed that engagement in e-learning
and virtual classes hinders e-learners from community interaction. By adding the human
interaction to online learning, the educators have considered the human need for socialization
which in turn will help the process of learning (Sethy, 2008).

This sense of belonging to a community which its absence in online learning may disturb
improvement of common emotions and feelings among learners and instructors. Mc- Millan and
Chavis (1986, p.9) offered the following definition of sense of community: “a feeling that
members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a
shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together”.

Rovai and Jordan (2004) studied a causal-comparative design to investigate the relationship
of sense of community between fully online, traditional classrooms, and blended higher
education learning environments. They found that blended courses create a stronger sense of
community among learners than either traditional or fully online courses. Evidently, online or
web-based learning environment offers the effectiveness and the flexibility that cannot be
guaranteed in a classroom environment while face-to-face classes provide the social
communication that students need for learning. So, the integration of these two environments
into blended format reserves the advantages of both learning platforms (Akkoyunlu & Soylu,
2006). Hence, it can be concluded that one of the principal benefits of blended learning is
providing a sense of community amongst learners (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004).

6. Mere online or blended learning?

Proponents of sole e-learning instruction like Lu and Chiou (2010) believe on some benefits
of such educational environments like immediate communication, processing learning based on
each individual pace, using web technology facilitators (email, chat, video conferencing), etc.
Studying through online mode, however, revealed that the feeling of isolation is real and that this
negative element is removed through blended learning. The blended learning environment
motivates students to participate in online classes more eagerly as they have the opportunity to
meet and discuss virtually with their classmates.

Perera (2010) concluded that compared to the virtual learning environment, blended learning
offers a more successful learning experience since it contains some aspects of traditional classes.
Moreover, mere virtual learning still consists of many problems in the area of education. Based
on Hameed, Badii and Cullen (2008), sole e-learning courses is more demanding for instructors
and more time commitment is expected of the teacher. Lack of interaction, according to Tinto
(1975 as cited in Rovai & Jordan, 2004) will cause frustration and a sense of isolation which
leads students to drop out. Tinto (1975 as cited in Rovai & Jordan, 2004) also argued that drop
outs are due to inadequate interactions of higher education students with peers and instructors.
So, mere online instruction has been denied by many researchers and blended environment has
been suggested because of its comprehensible advantages to the educational institutions. Lim,
Morris, and Kupritz (2006) concluded that instructions in a blended learning environment seem
to be more transparent than using only online delivery format.

Delialioglu and Yildirim (2007) claimed that there are many problems for purely online
instruction like limited hardware, software, time, money as well as pedagogical problems. This
has lead to a new idea of mixing the benefits of face-to-face courses with the benefits of online
courses, known as blended learning. They believed that instructors can support their courses by
online exercises, instant online feedback, and creating more valuable learning environments
through hypermedia and multimedia.

7. Face to face interaction still matters

Face-to-face interaction communicates a lot of facial expressions, body language, tone of

voice, and eye contact. Based on Lewis (2006, as cited in Kathy, 2006) facial expressions, body
language, and tone of voice are innate. In this regards, the brain needs and expects these more
significant channels of information. If these are not available, the brain suffers to communicate
and there is a high possibility that a misinterpretation might take place. Lewis (2006) also
claimed that if we think we can know someone and embrace this experience through text, we are
deceiving ourselves. Visual information and subtle emotions such as winkles and smiles are
crucial to communicate anything remotely and these do not exist in online learning. He added
that there are many factors that affect human communication that cannot be explained through
electronic communication and are more influential than we realize.

Akkoyunlu and Soylu (2006) examined students’ view on blended learning environment and
discovered that students enjoyed participating in a blended learning environment through which
face-to-face classes supplemented with online classes. Moreover, they emphasized on the
significance of communication and interaction for successful learning in online education. In
another perspective, Rovai (2004), one of the theorists of BL emphasized that designing courses
in blended learning is a flexible approach. It provides some conveniences of fully online courses
without leaving the face-to-face contact. It can be concluded that the benefits of face-to-face
interaction is undeniable and its presence can promote the quality of pure online or traditional
classes.
 8. Conclusion

In a blended learning course i.e. the combination of face-to-face instruction with online
platforms, students and teachers engage in using technology for active learning. Furthermore,
they are allowed to share their experiences through such a brand environment (Figure 1). In
addition, “blended learning provides more productive engagement among students in the online
environment and in course content as well” (Ziegler, Paulus, & Woodside, 2006, as cited in
Bdawi, 2009, p.6).

Therefore, designing a blended learning environment to reach a harmonious learning

equilibrium between face-to- face interaction and online access is essential (Osguthorpe &
Graham, 2003, as cited in Bdawi, 2009). Keeping this view in mind, blended environment
provides an encouraging situation for both the traditional classrooms and the online settings. In
other words, it is a range of delivery methods to meet the course objectives. To sum up, below
are the advantages of blended learning over online learning environments as below:

• Increased communication
• Engagement of face-to-face communication
• Sense of community
• Improved academic performance
• Collaborative tasks
• Adequate feedback
• Active participation
• Providing help
• Fun and practical manner of teaching and learning
• Etc…
The above discussions have reviewed the many advantages of blended learning over
traditional face-to-face classroom and online instruction. It can be concluded that those activities
which are involved in the blended instruction can foster the sense of community belonging and
remove the frustration created by mere online environment. The face-to-face element should not
be replaced because of the significant effect of body language, tone of voice, facial expressions
and eye contact on communication. These two educational settings namely e-learning and face-
to-face learning can complement one another for pedagogical application.

This paper has presented the successful application of blended learning in distance
learning especially in terms of students’ learning experience, student-student interaction and
student-instructor interaction. The blended learning approach is likely to emerge as the
predominant instructional model in the future.

References

Akkoyunlu, B. & Soylu, M. Y. (2006). “A Study on Students' Views About Blended

Learning Environment”. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 7 (3).
Azizan, F.Z. (2010). Blended Learning in Higher Education Institution in Malaysia.
Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT.
Badawi, M.F. (2009). Using Blended Learning for Enhancing EFL Prospective Teachers'
Pedagogical Knowledge and Performance. Conference paper: Learning & Language - The Spirit
of the Age. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov.
Chen, C.C., & Jones, K.T. (2007). “Blended Learning vs. Traditional Classroom Settings:
Assessing Effectiveness and Student Perceptions in an MBA Accounting Course”. The Journal
of Educators Online, 4 (1).
Davis, H.C. & Fill, K. (2007). “Embedding blended learning in a university’s teaching
culture: Experiences and reflections”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (5).
Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2007). “Students’ Perceptions on Effective Dimensions
of Interactive Learning in a Blended Learning Environment”. Educational Technology &
Society, 10 (2), 133-146.
Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let's get beyond e-learning. Retrieved
from:http://www.ltimagazine.com.
Dzakiria, H., Mustafa, C.S., & Abu Bakar, H. (2006). “Moving Forward with Blended
Learning (BL) as a Pedagogical Alternative to Traditional Classroom Learning”. Malaysian
Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 3 (1).
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004). “Blended learning”. Retrieved from:
http://www.educause.edu.
 Garrison, D.R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). “Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education”. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105.
Ginns, P. & Ellis, R.A. (2009). “ Evaluating the quality of e-learning at the degree level
in the student experience of blended learning”. British Journal of Educational Technology,
40(4), Pages: 652-663.
Gómez, L.A.O. & Duart, J.M. (2011). “A hybrid approach to university subject learning
activities”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2).
Graham, C. (2006). “Blended learning systems, definitions, current trends and future
directions”. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San
Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
Gülbahar, Y. & Madran, R.O. (2009). “Communication and Collaboration, Satisfaction,
Equity, and Autonomy in Blended Learning Environments: A Case from Turkey”. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 (2).
Hameed, Sh., Badii, A., & Cullen, A.J. (2008). “Effective E-Learning Integration with
Traditional Learning in a Blended Learning Environment”. European and Mediterranean
Conference on Information Systems.
Harrington, A. M. (2010). “Problematizing the Hybrid Classroom for ESL/EFL
Students”. TESL-EJ 14 (3).
Kathy, S. (2006). “Why face-to-face still matters! “Retrieved from:
http://headrush.typepad.com.
Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). “Learner and Instructional Factors Influencing
Learning Outcomes within a Blended Learning Environment”. Educational Technology &
Society, 12 (4), 282–293.
Lim, D.H., Morris, M. L., & kupritz, V.W. (2006). “Online vs. Blended Learning:
Differences in Instructional Outcomes and Learner Satisfaction”. Retrieved from:
http://eric.ed.gov.
Lu, H.P. & Chiou, M.J. (2010). “The impact of individual differences on e-learning
system satisfaction: A contingency approach”. British Journal o Educational Technology, 41 (2).
McMillan, D. W. & Chavis, D. M. (1986). “Sense of Community: A definition and
theory”. Journal of Community Psychology, 14 (1).
Oh, E., & Park, S. (2009). “How are universities involved in blended instruction?”
Educational Technology & Society, 12 (3).
Perera, I. (2010).”What will users expect from virtual learning methods?—A conceptual
model to analyze future leaning method enhancements”. US-China Education Review, 7 (11).
Picciano, A. G. (2006). “Blended Learning Implication for growth and access”. Journal
of asynchronous learning networks, 10 (3).
 Rovai, A. P. (2004). “A constructivist approach to online college learning”. Internet and
Higher Education, 7.
Rovai, A.P, & Jordan, H.P. (2004). “Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A
comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses”. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5 (2).
Sethy, S.S. (2008). “Distance Education in the Age of Globalization: An Overwhelming
Desire towards Blended Learning”. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9 (3).
Stubbs, M., Martin, I., & Endlar, L. (2006) .”The structuration of blended learning:
putting holistic design principles into practice”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37
(2).
Tayebinik, M. (2009). “The Effect of Learning Style and Motivation on EFL
Achievement Test in Virtual Learning Environments”. MA dissertation, Payame Noor
University, Tehran.
Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). “Assessing the Acceptance of a
Blended Learning University Course”. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 224–235.
Usta, E., & Özdemir, S.M. (2007). “An Analysis of Students' Opinions about Blended
Learning Environment”. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov.
Vignare, K., Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Luby, R., Roldan, R.S., & Wood, S.(2005).
“Blended Learning Review of Research: An Annotative Bibliography”. Retrieved from:
http://www.uic.edu.
Wang, M. J. (2010). “Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using
asynchronous tools in blended learning”. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
26(6), 830-846.
Yuen, A.H.K. (2010). “Blended learning in Higher Education: An Exploration of
Teaching Approaches”. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in
Education.