CHAPTER 22

Keys to Designing and Delivering Blended Learning

Jennifer Hofmann

When the last ATD handbook was published, in 2014, we were still trying to convince organizations that blended learning was worth the investment in time, money, and other resources. This chapter will explore why organizations resisted blended learning and how it can be a valuable part of your learning strategy.

Why did organizations resist blended learning? There are several reasons:

Traditional classroom learning is easy to schedule, and it was readily apparent who “finished” class by simply tracking attendance. Blended learning, on the other hand, requires an LMS to track completion of individual components.

Blended learning requires multiple technologies and instructional approaches. With that comes investments in EdTech, and a commitment to teaching the instructional staff how to effectively develop and implement these technologies.

Blended learning can be complicated: Watch a video, take a 20-minute e-learning program, go to a classroom, and attend three virtual sessions. This is often viewed as logistically difficult to manage, and not worth the effort. Organizations found it difficult to implement, and learners simply didn’t take it seriously.

When blended learning was attempted, it often wasn’t successful. Learners and, if truth be told, facilitators, only seemed to pay attention to the “most live” portion of the program. If there was a face-to-face section, supported by e-learning and video and virtual classroom, many learners just assumed the “important stuff” would happen in the classroom. And trainers, concerned that learners wouldn’t complete self-directed work, would find ways to insert the other content into the live sessions.

With all this complexity, it was easier to organize live training in a classroom.

So Why Blend?

As I mentioned in the 2014 edition of the ASTD Handbook, “The classroom has been used for so long (centuries!) not because it is the most effective means of teaching, but because it was the technology available at the time.”

We’ve been trying to implement blended learning in organizations for decades. There are so many obvious advantages, including:

•  Cost reduction. When learners are at their desks, there are real cost savings associated with travel expenses and infrastructure (classroom) investments. As teams become more geographically dispersed and workplaces become more virtual, bringing groups together for training is less economically feasible.

•  Flexibility. While there are some fixed time commitments associated with live sessions, individuals have the flexibility to learn on their own schedules. Also, there can be many more enrollment options so learners can participate in a program when it is convenient and relevant for them to do so. In today’s business environment, there is a real need for just-in-time training—when and where we need it. Blended learning helps solve that need.

•  Increased learner retention. Since individual pieces of learning content are shorter in duration, learners have a chance to process the information and perhaps even practice a new skill in a real-work situation before moving on to the next lesson in the learning journey. This phenomenon is known as the spacing effect.

These are great reasons for implementing blended learning, and most learning professionals would agree that a strong blended learning curriculum is their goal. But blended learning programs are not getting the traction you would expect—and that’s because creating and implementing a blend is, simply put, hard.

Training programs delivered using a single format (such as face-to-face, virtual classroom, or e-learning) are easier to design, easier to implement, and easier for learners to complete.

And, there is a much more subtle and subconscious reason we aren’t focused on blended learning: It’s not exciting or new. It is more interesting to focus on emerging technologies, like virtual reality and chatbots, or developing instructional techniques like gamification, curation, and simulations, than it is to talk about blended learning. But by focusing on these individual pieces, we are losing the big picture. Blended learning can be the best of both worlds.

The Flipped Classroom

During the last decade, “flipping the classroom” became a popular concept for explaining how and why to create a blend. This concept is credited to primary education, when lectures and knowledge transfer activities occur during the traditional homework and self-study times. Then, when students interact with their instructors in the classroom, they are led through hands-on application, lab exercises, and other higher-order thinking activities.

As a baseline, the flipped classroom is what we’re trying to achieve. This so-called webinar model of instruction, where we insist people get together virtually at the same time but only allow them to listen and ask questions via chat, is not a viable training approach. If learners can log on to a recording and have the same experience as attending a live event, it’s simply knowledge transfer and not a training program.

If, however, we can develop an approach where learners see the value in completing self-directed work before coming to a live environment where they are challenged, have opportunities to practice, and are rigorously assessed, we can start to create a true blended learning mode.

When designing a blend, we are effectively trying to achieve a flipped classroom. We are determining what content needs to be live, what content can be self-directed, and what instructional strategies, techniques, and technologies should be used to create the most impactful experience.

What Is Blended Learning, Really?

A casual internet search for blended learning “types” or “models” often brings us to research by the Christiansen Institute. It’s tempting to try to adopt the different models identified by the institute (such as the rotation model, flex model, à la carte model, and enriched virtual model) as a corporate training framework. The institute’s research is based on educational experiences in schools (elementary, secondary, and so forth), not the corporate training environment. The definition used by the Christiansen Institute assumes that there is a brick and mortar (or traditional classroom) component to most learning experiences.

That is not the case for modern blended learning outside an educational institution. Especially in this post-pandemic economy, face-to-face experiences and corporate training are no longer the norm. Organizations are adopting a “virtual first” approach to learning and development and requiring a strong business case for more traditional programs.

In a corporate context, blended learning is the framework that connects instructional technologies with techniques, providing a solution that meets the needs of modern learners and a business climate that’s increasingly mobile, global, and reliant on social, collaborative technologies.

When we say, “Connect instructional technologies with techniques,” we mean that designers of blended learning need to identify every performance objective associated with the curriculum, including enabling objectives, and map each one to the most appropriate instructional technology. Blended learning doesn’t have to begin and end with formal experiences.

Fundamentally, we need to make sure we start with a strong instructional design approach prior to selecting the delivery technology. We should base our selection on two considerations:

•  How will you assess mastery of a particular concept during the formal training?

•  How will the content be used after the training is complete at different moments of learner need?

Assessing Mastery

As mentioned already, stakeholders in a blended learning program, including facilitators, learners, and managers, tend to focus on the “most live” component of a blend and see the self-directed work as optional. And, because most self-directed work is not completed, facilitators find ways to address that content during the live events, at the expense of the time set aside for activities and practice. The result of this practice is often a series of (well-designed) related content that is not tied together by a narrative and is underutilized.

To avoid this, each individual component of the blend should have some way to assess completion and mastery. It could be a simple test, integration of the self-directed content into the live conversations, or some kind of encompassing case study that ties everything together. What we need to avoid is reteaching self-directed content in the live program.

Assessing Whether Learning Objectives Are Met

There is generally a direct correlation between the type of assessment to use and the type of technology used to deliver the content associated with that assessment. For example, if your assessment is a self-paced instrument that tests the learners’ recall of content, you can probably deliver that in a self-paced format. If learners are required to collaborate with others to be assessed, you will probably need to deliver content using a collaborative technology, which can be live (traditional classrooms and virtual classrooms) or not live (discussion board postings and some forms of social media).

Remember, blended learning is not only about matching content to the most appropriate delivery technology, but doing it at the performance objective level. It’s the assessment technique that marries these two concepts.

Meeting Learners at Their Moment of Need

Blended learning requires you to be even more specific when identifying performance needs and performer needs. (As a result, you may have more specific potential solutions.) That’s because with modern blended learning design, you can be responsive not just when learners are learning something new for the first time; you can design and implement solutions that affect every moment of learning need.

Bob Mosher and Conrad Gottfredson (2012) identified five moments of learning need to help illustrate where performance support could supplement the formal learning process:

•  When people are learning how to do something for the first time (new)

•  When people are expanding the breadth and depth of what they have learned (more)

•  When people need to act upon what they have learned, which includes planning what they will do, remembering what they may have forgotten, or adapting their performance to a unique situation (apply)

•  When problems arise or things break or don’t work the way they were intended (solve)

•  When people need to learn a new way of doing something, which requires them to change skills that are deeply ingrained in their performance practices (change)

These same moments lend themselves to the entire blended learning process because different training solutions support different moments of need.

From Push Training to Pull Learning

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated our movement from an industrial economy to the new knowledge economy. Learning and development models have been slow to change. We know that classrooms and week-long sessions are not efficient, and people don’t remember most of what they learn in those contexts, but we were still using them until recently. We always meant to move content online and create better blends, but the impetus wasn’t there to make it happen.

Now, our training has gone virtual and it will be staying there.

The pandemic and other economic factors (such as globalization, digitalization, and a younger generation accustomed to on-demand learning options and social networks) are forcing us to change our approach. Organizations are moving away from delivery-focused, instructor-centered events based on centralized and siloed content. Instead, they are moving toward ongoing, learner-centered, decentralized learning solutions that focus on results.

This evolution perfectly describes push training versus pull learning. Push training comes to the learners whether they’re ready (and willing) or not. In comparison, pull learning is made available to learners when they need it. This is a major change in culture that companies are just beginning to manage. And we can help by working to prove the value of including more pull learning opportunities. To meet the needs of modern learners, you need to focus on the pull learning model as a significant part of your blend, where people can connect and learn from one another.

Incorporating blended learning will be a big change for most organizations. Part of the change strategy requires contemplating how to influence the mindset of your learning organization, changing from a “push training environment” to a “pull learning environment.”

Blended Learning Effective Practices

To help you make this transition, let’s examine 10 effective blended learning practices. You can evaluate how well you are doing using the Blended Learning Scoring Tool on the handbook’s website at ATDHandbook3.org.

Effective Practice 1

Instructional goals are established and communicated, including clear definitions of what will be taught, and why it will be taught within a blended solution.

When instructional goals are established for a blended learning solution, the entire team needs to be made aware of what materials will be taught and why the learners would benefit from a blend of delivery methodologies. Once this information is defined and communicated, the team can begin to determine the best way to design a blended solution.

Blended learning solutions are just that—a blend of the best delivery methodologies available for a specific objective. It is less about the technology available, and more about the needs and priorities of the learning community as framed within established instructional goals. Asking “What?” and “Why?” will guide the design process and help determine which elements work best for online, classroom-based instruction, electronic performance support, paper-based, and formalized or informal on-the-job solutions.

Recommendations:

•  Clearly communicate the instructional goals of the learning solution.

•  Remember to ask “Why?” along with “What?”

•  If this is your first blended learning instructional design project, reframe the needs analysis to focus on the “why” to better inform your design.

•  Create an executive summary that expands on what will be taught and why it will be taught within a blended solution.

•  Ask for feedback on the summary from key stakeholders to be sure that you are on track.

•  Share the summary and feedback with your learning designers, developers, facilitators, and producers.

Effective Practice 2

A needs analysis is conducted to determine if a blended learning approach is appropriate for the learning program.

The needs analysis phase is critical to the design, development, and delivery of learning solutions, and it will benefit the entire learning team (and learners) to consider if a blended approach is appropriate.

Needs analyses are tied closely to instructional and organizational goals. As you craft your needs analysis, consider what solutions have been effective in the past, and research, as best you can, where the organization as a whole is headed.

If the results tell you that a blended learning solution is not the right fit, consider going back to the instructional goal and ask the “what” and “why” questions again.

Recommendations:

•  Review past, current, and future instructional approaches before you conduct a needs analysis.

•  Consider how, where, and when people work and learn.

•  Refer back to the “what” and “why” of the instructional goals before you conduct your needs analysis.

•  Compare results with current and future instructional goals and performance objectives.

Effective Practice 3

Measurable performance objectives are developed to support learner success.

Performance objectives indicate what learners will be able to do at the end of the training. Taking the time to craft meaningful performance objectives will guide learner success and ensure that the blended learning solution will support the overall instructional goals.

Focus on the audience, behavior, condition, and criteria for success when creating learner-centered objectives.

To create measurable performance objectives:

•  Identify the learner.

•  Describe what the learner will be able to do when learning is complete.

•  Specify the conditions under which the performance will occur.

•  Detail the criteria used to evaluate learner performance.

Measurable performance objectives provide a road map for designing a successful blended learning program. They provide guidelines on how to assess knowledge gain and establish the pathway for learners to explore throughout their learning journey.

Recommendations:

•  Review your learning objectives as a whole to be sure that they create a learning pathway.

•  If applicable, create objectives that guide the scaffolding of learning from lower-order to higher-order thinking.

•  If you are converting to a blend from a face-to-face environment, take this opportunity to review your performance objectives to ensure that they are still applicable within the blended solution.

Effective Practice 4

Modes of delivery and technologies are selected in alignment with performance objectives.

Performance objectives should drive the consideration, evaluation, and selection of technologies and delivery modes. Once you identify the performance objectives, you should decide how you will know whether a learner has mastered each objective.

Following these simple steps can help guide your selection of delivery modes throughout the blended learning design process:

•  Determine what needs to be taught and what associated objectives are included in that topic.

•  Establish if the associated objectives can be assessed online. If the answer is yes, then the associated learning can also be taught online.

•  Decide whether collaboration would enhance learning associated with the objective by asking:

  Is there a purpose to bringing learners together?

  Does mastery of this objective require the synergy of a group?

  Will the outcome for learners be better because we have brought them together to learn?

By taking the time to step through this process, you can design a blended learning program that best achieves your performance objectives.

Recommendations:

•  Take the time to review each individual learning event and all associated performance objectives before you start the conversation about delivery modes.

•  Create a curriculum map to illustrate the relationship between learning objectives, learning content, and selected modes of delivery.

Effective Practice 5

Methods and approaches for assessing learner mastery are designed in alignment with performance objectives.

Blended learning is not only about matching content to the most appropriate delivery medium but also doing it at the learning objective level. It’s the assessment technique that marries these two concepts.

Learning activities and assessments should be designed to support the mastery of performance objectives. Activity and assessment types are typically discussed and designed alongside the delivery mode review process.

As there is generally a direct correlation between the type of assessment and the type of technology you will use, it is important to loop back to the performance objectives on a regular basis to be sure that your design stays on target, with learner success always in mind.

Recommendations:

•  List all performance objectives associated with each activity and assessment to be sure that learners can achieve all objectives.

•  If scaffolded learning is part of the instructional goal, create a curriculum map to illustrate the alignment of the lower- and higher-order thinking levels to the assessment approaches.

•  Loop back through the delivery mode selection process to be sure that the selected delivery modes are appropriate for each activity and assignment.

Effective Practice 6

Learning material that supports knowledge-based objectives is designed to be delivered through self-paced technologies.

Knowledge-based objectives, such as remembering and understanding, are well suited for self-paced learning. Learning objectives that use keywords such as recognize, list, identify, define, and locate fit within that scope.

When designing blended learning solutions, consider technologies that focus on disseminating information and require little or no connection or collaboration with other learners (or the instructor).

Recommendations:

•  Focus on the design of interactions between learners and content for knowledge-based objectives.

•  Ensure that learners have detailed instructions on how to access and complete all self-paced materials.

•  Provide opportunities for learners to reflect on or share their self-paced learning experiences within the blended learning solution.

Effective Practice 7

Live learning events are designed to encourage learners to collaborate, solve problems, answer questions, and pose solutions.

The time set aside for live events in any blended learning solution should focus on collaboration, not information dissemination. Real-time events (face-to-face or virtual) can be designed to review key concepts, provide feedback, and create the opportunity to work in groups to solve a learning challenge.

Loop back to the blended learning delivery mode selection process, where we asked if collaboration would enhance learning associated with the performance objectives. The live events are where we establish the purpose for bringing learners together, harness the synergy of the group, and achieve better outcomes based on input from and interaction among learning peers.

Recommendations:

•  Delivery approaches should be designed to promote the instructor as a facilitator, not lecturer, within all live learning events.

•  Provide and promote options for co-creating and sharing learning assets.

•  Include opportunities for learners to reflect on or share their live learning experiences within the blended learning solution.

Effective Practice 8

A course map is created to illustrate the balance of learning elements within the blended curriculum.

The course map provides an overview of the entire blended learning curriculum by explaining the sequence of events, the types of learning activities, the anticipated length for each activity, and an indication of when the activity will take place.

Course maps provide details of the journey for learners, helping them get started, find their learning pathway, and determine what it will take to complete the journey. While the map details the phases of the learning journey for the learner, it also provides an overview of the balance within the blended learning solution for the designer. Reviewing the course map will better enable designers to determine if there is a correct balance and application of content, interaction, and assessment modes within the blend.

Recommendations:

•  Create a checklist to go along with the course map to help guide learners on their learning journey.

•  Include time management tips and tools (or link to them) within the course map.

•  Integrate the course map into every learning event within the blended learning solution to be sure that learners know how they are progressing within their learning journey.

Effective Practice 9

Communication channels and tools are designed to support learner progress and reporting throughout the blended learning schedule.

Communication channels allow instructors and learners to connect and collaborate within the blended learning environment. As learners work on their own or in groups, these communication channels provide value by enabling the exchange of information and ideas, as well as the creation of new knowledge.

Communication channels provide a means for instructors to keep learners on track, and for learners to report on their progress. These channels need to serve a purpose and be associated with performance objectives. This association will ensure that learners keep progressing, learning, and sharing.

Recommendations:

•  When creating a communication channel, remember to focus on the associated learning objectives.

•  Design communication channels to include feedback mechanisms that guide learners as they progress through the learning curriculum.

•  Provide a means within the channel to communicate milestones and achievements within the learning community.

Effective Practice 10

An evaluation plan is in place to determine the effectiveness of the blended learning solution.

Evaluation of all learning events leads to informed decisions to review, revise, and renew materials and modes of delivery. When conducted throughout the blended learning experience, evaluation can help better define performance objectives, refine learning materials, and ensure that learner needs are being met.

Designing and planning the evaluation process in advance will guide the development of learning materials and blended delivery methods. It will ensure that learners are satisfied with the curriculum, as well as determine what they have learned and let you know if they are able to apply the skills they have obtained.

Evaluation results also provide stakeholders with information to guide future planning for learning solutions within the organization.

Recommendations:

•  Clearly state (and continuously refine) the purpose of conducting any evaluation in advance.

•  Share the purpose of the evaluation along with the results.

•  Ask for feedback from stakeholders and continuously refine your evaluation methods.

Final Thoughts

There have always been good reasons for choosing blended learning over a single virtual or live program, but resistance to implementing a blended solution is common. In this chapter we discussed the challenges to creating blended learning solutions and how a well-designed and implemented program can offer the best of both the virtual and live worlds. Following the 10 blended learning design practices and making them part of every design strategy ensures that your design will be effective. An effective blended learning design ensures a reduced cost, more flexibility, and increased learner retention.

About the Author

Jennifer Hofmann, virtual classroom and blended learning pioneer, is founder and president of InSync Training. Her virtual consulting firm specializes in the design and delivery of engaging, innovative, and effective modern blended learning. Jennifer has written and contributed to a number of well-received and highly regarded books including The Synchronous Trainer’s Survival Guide: Facilitating Successful Live Online Courses, Meetings, and Events, Live and Online!: Tips, Techniques, and Ready to Use Activities for the Virtual Classroom, and Tailored Learning: Designing the Blend That Fits (co-authored with Nanette Miner). Her latest book, Blended Learning, introduces a new instructional design model that addresses the needs of the modern workplace and modern learners. She frequently presents in person and online for leading learning organizations around the world. Subscribe to Jennifer’s blog virtually at blog.insynctraining.com or connect with her on LinkedIn (linkedin.com/in/jennifer-hofmann-dye) for new content and timely insight.

References

Biech, E., ed. 2014. ASTD Handbook, 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

Christensen Institute. n.d. “Blended Learning Definitions.” Christensen Institute. christenseninstitute.org/blended-learning-definitions-and-models.

Hofmann, J. 2014. Blended Learning Instructional Design: A Modern Approach. InSync Training, August 19. blog.insynctraining.com/modern-learning-resource-library/blended-learning-instructional-design-a-modern-approach.

Hofmann, J. 2018a. Blended Learning. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.

Hofmann, J. 2018b. Blended Learning in Practice. The Learning Guild Research Library, May 9. learningguild.com/insights/221/blended-learning-in-practice.

Mosher, B., and C. Gottfredson. 2012. “Are You Meeting All Five Moments of Learning Need?” Learning Solutions, June 18. learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/949/are-you-meeting-all-five-moments-of-learning-need.

Seaman, P. 2017. “Make the Spacing Effect Work for Online Students.” Portland Community College Online Learning, August. pcc.edu/online/2017/08/make-the-spacing-effect-work-for-online-students.