Blended Course Design: Where's the Pedagogy?

Pedagogical Organization In Blended Courses

This study builds on the author’s previous work regarding blended course “best” practices (McGee & Reis, 2012). Best practice guides for blended learning are readily available from different countries, various institutions, and from a variety of businesses. The term “best” implies only one way to accomplish something well, and that is not the case with blended pedagogy. Effective practice is a more accurate descriptor. McGee and Reis (2012) analyzed effective practices for blended course design and found while many research-based recommendations are available, there is little articulation of pedagogical strategies to inform course design. Without understanding the unique pedagogy of a blended courses, it is difficult to design. McGee and Reis (2012) use the following definition to better communicate the essential components of a blended design:

No clearly articulated pedagogical models exist to guide course design, in spite of reported success and student preference for the blended delivery mode. Picciano (2009) believes we know so little about this delivery system because there is no taxonomy or commonly accepted framework that provides a foundation for critical study. “One school's blended is another school's hybrid, or another school's mixed-mode” (p.8). The lack of a coherent framework based on effective practices contributes to the ill-defined nature of a blended course. The metaphor of hybrid car versus integrated power systems illustrates the dilemma. Turning ‘on’ one mode while another mode is ‘off’ may be efficient and effective, however, such an approach is essentially different from an approach where there is no discernable segregation between power systems. In a learning context, a hybrid approach may be effective and appropriate for some courses, but hybrid is essentially different from a blended approach.