In this 2004 paper, Stephen Laster of Babson College (now at Harvard Business School) shares thoughts on defining blended learning.

Following is the introduction to the paper, read the attached for the remainder:

INTRODUCTION

This past summer I had the pleasure of participating in the Sloan-C Online Research Workshop. Working with a large group of energetic educators, we were able to examine the issues of student satisfaction, learning effectiveness, blended environments, and transformative assessment. I facilitated the conversation around blended learning in which a productive exchange of ideas took place.

In the realm of blended learning, I was struck by the large number of educators and institutions who are delivering blended experiences and by the large number of definitions applied to blended learning. At one extreme, one could argue that “blended” learning can be any kind of learning. However, in an applied view, one generally equates blended learning to a teaching and learning experience that uses technology. Within the bounds of the applied view, great variability still exists around a firmly established blended learning definition.

The fluid definition of blended learning is simultaneously a strength and weakness of our current understanding and practice. The strength is
that it leaves the door open for innovation and experimentation. New ideas are readily applied supporting conceptual and practical advances in the blended field. Experimentation continues to be embraced and lessons learned are collected and distilled. In this “research system,” the fluid definition allows ideas to easily enter, flourish, and contribute to the advancement of our understanding of blended learning.

The weakness is a potential lack of benchmark from which to measure performance and success. The “system” (the entire body of activity that develops, delivers, and evaluates blended learning) is so consumed with works in process that it becomes difficult to develop common concepts
that can be measured across students, institutions, and time. Today’s blended course may look nothing like next semester’s offering, even though the learning objectives will have remained constant.

A mature or stable definition provides a solid foundation from which to measure and provides an environment where change is potentially easier to manage. However, the risk of developing and implementing a definition prematurely is that it inhibits creativity before arriving at themost productive understanding of blended learning. In essence, we are arguably best served by an environment where we have shared understandings of blended learning concepts, from which we can measure outcomes and performance (perhaps through the lens of Sloan-C Pillars), manage risk and investment trade-offs, but where our ability to experiment is unfettered.