When is the last time you were sitting in a meeting and someone said, “Let’s run it up the flagpole.” How about when you were having a conversation with a work colleague and she said, “It’s time to hit the ground running.” What do those phrases even mean? Are you supposed to write an idea down, take it outside, clip it on a cable, and hoist it to the top of the flag pole? What good would that do? Is your colleague suggesting you jump out of an airplane (hopefully with a parachute) and be running already when you hit the ground? Will that get you where you’re going any quicker?

Fortunately, most of us have a good idea what these phrases mean. Nevertheless, they are still overused and can be confusing to some people. It’s therefore better to either define the terms or use more descriptive ones instead. Here’s another overused term that can mean many different things to different people – blended learning. Many people have some idea of what blended learning means; however, because it can mean different things, when using it some form of description should be included. Without some form of definition, blended learning is little more than a clever catch phrase or buzzword that has little real meaning or value.

Today, I’d like to discuss what I think should be the definition of blended learning. I’ll also put some context around the definition to hopefully make it even more clear.

Norm Friesen, in his 2012 paper titled “Report: Defining Blended Learning”, came up with what he called a composite definition. He wrote,”“Blended learning” designates the range of possibilities presented by combining Internet and digital media with established classroom forms that require the physical co‐presence of teacher and students.” This is probably close to how many people see blended learning. They provide some up-front introductory information online. They follow that with a more traditional classroom-based segment. They may then give additional material online after classroom “training.”

The problem with this definition is I think it’s too constraining. From my point of view, blended learning should encompass many different methods to ensure that not only learning but also performance improvement takes place. Friesen included a quote by Elliot Masie in his paper. He wrote, “What is ‘blended learning’? It is the use of two or more distinct methods of training. This may include combinations such as: blending classroom instruction with online instruction, blending online instruction with access to a coach or faculty member, blending simulations with structured courses, blending on‐the‐job training with brownbag informal sessions, blending managerial coaching with e‐learning activities.” This comes much closer to what I think blended learning should be.

I think blended learning should also focus on, and be centered around, performance improvement. Most learning, at least in a corporate environment, should lead to an increase in performance. (The reason I write “most learning” and not “all learning” is that I believe there should still be a place for learning in the corporate environment that is done for personal satisfaction and enjoyment. Happy employees are going to be much more productive employees.)

While in my graduate program I was encouraged to develop a definition for “training”. Since then, I have modified the definition to focus more on learning and performance. Here it is:

“Learning programs, termed by many as training, should be focused on performance centered learning. They should get the right information, to the right people, at the right time, using the right mediums and methods so that people are able to perform better on their jobs.”

This is a good description for blended learning. Blended learning should include much more than just eLearning followed by time with an instructor. Many organizations used to judge training budgets and success by how many people attended classes. Sadly some still do. Those days should be over. Today, organizations should make use of every learning solution available to “get the right information, to the right people, at the right time.”

There is still a place for instructor-led, classroom-based training. Nevertheless, organizations should make extensive use of well designed and developed eLearning in situations where the cost of developing and sustaining it is worthwhile. They should use knowledge management and Expert or Embedded Performance Support Systems (EPSS) where feasible. They should use webinars. These can be either live or recorded. Each has its pluses and minuses. They should use internal discussion boards and knowledge forums. They should also make extensive use of job aids where possible. Those are just a sampling of high-tech solutions.

In addition to all the high-tech solutions available, organizations should incorporate appropriate low-tech solutions. Organizations could provide personnel opportunities for self-guided-learning. Organizations could use on-the-job coaches. In this context, coaches are experienced and highly skilled personnel who help less skilled personnel learn new knowledge and skills. They could use more traditional on-the-job training programs to help personnel learn over an extended period of time. There are other low-tech solutions available.

Many of these mediums and methods can be used either with or without traditional classroom-based training. The most important key is using the right blend “so that people are able to perform better on their jobs.” This hints at another important component of blended learning and an overall learning program. Organizations should use some type of job-based skills verification to make sure personnel can use their newly acquired knowledge and skills on the job. That will be the topic of a future post.