Fresh Faces in Blended Learning Environments

Heather M. Ross, Richard A. Schwier & Ben K. Daniel

Virtual Learning Community (VLC) Research Lab

Educational Communications and Technology
University of Saskatchewan

Saskatoon, Canada
heather.hm19@gmail.com, richard.Schwier@usask.ca, ben.daniel@usask.ca

Please cite as: Ross, H., Schwier, R.A., & Daniel, B.K. (May, 2006). Fresh faces in  
blended learning environments. Paper presented at TLt 2006, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Abstract
A three-year study on virtual learning communities includes an examination of the
importance face-to-face meetings play in building a sense of community in a blended
learning environment. This paper details some of the experiences and perceptions
expressed by students in blended learning environments and considers the best use of
face-to-face sessions.

Distance learning environments provide opportunities for learning that break through the
barriers of space, geography and time.

While the benefits of online learning support education and training for those who may
not otherwise be able to receive it easily, there are also some drawbacks, notably a lack
of interpersonal contact with classmates and the instructor. For example, many learners
still find it difficult to learn at a distance because they are traditionally used to face-to-
face learning and prefer the physical presence of others in a face-to-face settings. A
blended approach (online and face-to-face), combining the best of both worlds, can
address many of the problems that come with purely distance or face-to-face approaches
to education.
This paper explores the benefits a face-to-face component contributes to the success of a
blended learning environment, including helping to build a stronger sense of community
in a course. Observations were drawn from a graduate seminar over a two-year period.
For the purpose of this study, a blended learning environment is one that is principally
online, but that also includes regular face-to-face meetings between the students and

1
instructor.

Benefits of a Blended Learning Environment
Students value the flexibility that distance learning provides to them, but many also
identify limitations to purely distance delivery, which can impede their learning process.
One significant drawback is the lack of human contact. While communication between
learners may take place through asynchronous discussion boards or e-mail, or
synchronous methods such as chat or telephony, a lack of face-to-face contact with other
students and the instructor can detract from the learning process (Pinheiro, Campbell,
Hirst & Krupa, 2006). By limiting the number and effectiveness of verbal and visual cues
(Rovai & Jordon, 2004; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003) and reinforcing a sense of
isolation (Rovai,, 2003).
Blended learning environments can provide the opportunities afforded by mixing the best
of both online delivery and the traditional face-to-face delivery (Rovai & Jordon, 2004).
Blended learning provides students with an opportunity to interact with their classmates
and instructor. Even a single initial face-to-face meeting of the course can make a
difference in overcoming some of the lack of human contact (Garrison & Anderson,
2003; Martyn, 2003).
These benefits are dependent on how the various aspects of the blended learning
environment are used. If, for example, face-to-face sessions consist of an instructor
lecturing, writing notes on the board, or showing an endless number of PowerPoint slides
then little interaction or community building will occur between students. We will discuss
making good use of the face-to-face session in greater detail later in this paper.
Offering blended courses instead of purely online or entirely face-to-face also makes
sense for some traditional on-campus students in higher education. Many of the students
taking online courses are also taking face-to-face courses through the same institution
(Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004). Such flexibility enables students to balance work
and learning and also the ability to complete their course requirements in an appropriate
period of time. They may simply log into a computer system, or access the library to
reply to a discussion board post message while sitting around the corner from a
traditional classroom.

Methodology
This paper is part of an ongoing research program at the University of Saskatchewan
involving the study of virtual learning communities, the sense of community within them,
and what the learners see as the benefits and constraints associated with learning in
virtual settings. Data reported in this study were drawn from students in a two years of a
graduate seminar offered using a blended approach. Students in these two courses
regularly engaged in discourse around themes associated with the course and
communicated among themselves through asynchronous discussion boards and met once
per month in face-to-face meetings. Many of the students met for lunch following these
face-to-face class meetings.

2
There were twelve students enrolled in each section of the course. One student took the
course entirely online because her location didn’t permit her to travel to group meetings. .
The transcripts of the online discussions were analyzed for evidence of elements of a
virtual learning community. Several participants were also interviewed to gage what the
students felt about the delivery approach and an emergent sense of community. The
discussion transcripts and interview transcripts were also analyzed for student’s
comments on the role of the face-to-face component of these courses.

Views of the Learners
At several points during the course, students expressed their views about online learning 
communities and face­to­face courses meetings. They also had a chance to share their 
thoughts on these topics in post course interviews. The learners, overall, expressed a 
positive view of the blended learning approach, with recognition of the benefits of both 
the online portion and strong support for the face­to­face component.

Benefits of Distance Component 
The students in these courses enjoyed the flexibility that taking the course online had to 
offer. The flexibility was manifested in terms of when and where they could post to the 
discussion boards and it gave them more time for reflection and the ability to post as 
thoughts came to mind.
“[Y]ou could have thought of something you wanted to say to somebody
about what they said at 11 o'clock at night and you can go and put it down.
Where as if you thought of it and it was a face-to-face class only you'd
forget it by the time class rolled around.”
“The bulletin board where questions were posed and I need to respond
within a certain period of time gives me time to learn and think and then to
post and respond. So that thinking time and reflective time is very
important.”
Even the student in another province, who had no face-to-face interactions with the other
students enjoyed the benefits of a bulk of the course from the distance, despite a clear
recognition that the face-to-face sessions were important.
“I don't have the pleasure of any f2f contact with you, which is definitely a  
con; however, I also find that I focus on the material, and have the freedom  
to work on the course whenever I want.”
Comments similar to these are common among learners who take courses through 
distance education (Pineheiro, Campbell, Hirst & Krupa, 2006) but the students in this 
study also listed many reasons why they were glad that the course of study also included 
face­to­face meetings.

3
The Role of Face­to­face in Building a Community
While communities can exist in purely online formats, the learner in these courses found 
that the face­to­face component assisted them in building a sense of community. They 
found that being able to put a face with each name on the discussion board made it easier 
to relate to what would have been otherwise regarded as faceless words.
“Knowing everyone from the f2f sessions gives me a sense of who I’m  
talking with in the online discussions … The f2f sessions are the glue that  
holds all the bits together”
“A sense of community is created in our f2f meetings and getting to know  
people person to person, makes our communication online different than it  
would be if we were only VLC, without the face to face component.”
“I found that having met the people in a face-to-face situation, which I
seemed to understand their motivation better.”
It is important to note that early in the year when the student from another province was 
enrolled in the course the instructor took pictures of all of the other students and sent 
them to her, and also taped a brief video introduction from each student to welcome her to 
the course. Another student put the pictures of all students on a server and provided the 
code to include personal photographs of themselves in each of their posts.  The intention 
was to personalize the postings on the discussion board, although there are no data to 
suggest that this strategy was successful or unsuccessful.

The Influence of Face­to­Face 
A lack of visual and auditory cues, such as vocal inflection, is often a complaint among 
those who are purely learning at a distance.  This problem was also noted by the student 
from another province, and never in attendance at the face­to­face sessions.
“In a traditional classroom setting I tend to learn people before I learn all  
the content; and I have multiple stimuli to associate persons with their  
ideas i.e. facial features, where they like to sit etc.  I have been missing this  
in our online discussions.”
The other students in this study found that through the face­to­face meetings they 
learned the peculiar way others spoke and carried on conversations, therefore 
making it easier to understand their writings on the discussion board. 
“After meeting people and talking with them a bit, it makes it easier to  
understand their writing. Sometimes I can even hear their voices when I  
read over their posting.”

4
Let’s Do Lunch
As noted earlier, many of the students and the instructor would go to lunch after their 
monthly Saturday meetings. At lunch conversations ranged from topics discussed in class 
to happenings with families and personal interests. These lunches served to further build 
the sense of community for these learners. As one of them noted:
“I know it sounds silly, but I really got to know people who did attend  
those lunches and it helped me to make them more than a name.”
These lunches were not required, yet several of the students eagerly attended to continue 
scholarly and personal conversations, which were often started in the class and in the hall 
during a break. Had they not attended lunch they would have been free to leave for the 
day. This seems to suggest that when given the opportunity to meet face­to­face with 
classmates, the same distance learners who enjoy the flexibility that comes with an online 
course will relish the human contact. Indeed, the instructor observed that many 
friendships were spawned during these casual times together, and that many of the 
friendships carried over into other parts of students’ lives.  The course and its content 
seemed to provide the initial common ground on which deeper and richer relationships 
could be built.

The Outsider
The lone student who took the course entirely at a distance was grateful for the 
opportunity to complete the seminar entirely online. This allowed her to continue her 
studies without leaving her job. She however, had moments throughout the year where 
she felt left out of the routine happenings and conversations that came with the face­to­
face sessions. 
“I didn’t ever have that ‘Hey, what did you do this weekend?’ of ‘What’s  
going on? Do you have kids?’”
This exclusion also reached beyond the social and into the learning aspects of the course. 
While notes were taken at each monthly face­to­face session and then posted to a wiki for 
further comment by the students in attendance and viewed by anyone interested, including 
the out of province student, the ability to meet in person with the outside of class was not 
available to her. While this isolation wasn’t expressed as resentment by the excluded 
student, her comments hinted at a sense of disappointment and ennui.
“At the end, I knew [everyone was] getting together to study for the exam  
and there were [posts] in the main notes. Just like ‘Oh, why don’t we go to  
this person’s place for a barbeque? Bring the beer, bring this and we’ll  

5
 study for the exam.’ And I was like, ‘Oh well, have fun. I guess I’ll just  
study by myself. I obviously can’t be there.”
All of the above views and experiences suggest the importance that the learners place on 
the connections made during face­to­face meetings, including those made outside of the 
classroom. It is reasonable to suggest that one of our goals in creating online learning 
environments should be to offer as many authentic opportunities for human­human 
engagement as possible.  Course content can provide a rallying point—an initial reason 
for getting together—but the goal of the human engagement should be to transcend the 
content and begin the difficult process of nurturing a growth of community.

Considerations in Creating Blended Learning Environments
What is done during the face-to-face meetings is very important in making learning
interesting and engaging. If an instructor uses most of the time to lecture then very little
student interaction will occur, negating the benefits of these meetings to the success of a
blended learning environment. The central point is that face-to-face meetings, per se, do
not stimulate the growth of relationships and community; certainly many traditional face-
to-face classrooms do little to engage students in this way.
In order to promote community, face-to-face meetings should instead be used for in-
person discussions that allow for different kinds of spontaneous and real-time interaction
between students and students, and students and instructor. These sessions should also be
used to enhance what is covered in the online portion of the course, not to replicate it.
It is important to acknowledge that there is considerable inertia in our educational
systems to overcome. Students come to class meetings with expectations, and many
times those expectations are that the instructor will transmit content, and they will receive
and interpret it. Many classes do not use class time to promote the development of
community among students and the instructor.
The instructor needs to be very explicit about the expectations of face-to-face meetings in
blended environments. Students should approach face-to-face sessions hoping to listen to
the instructor speak, but rather as a way of connecting with peers and the instructor. It is
almost always necessary to allow sufficient time for students to become comfortable with
new expectations and trust the instructor to follow through with them. The instructor
should develop an explicit structure to get discussions going. The instructor therefore,
should prepare activities that will foster discussion amongst the students and assume the
role of a facilitator. This is easily said, but sometimes a significant challenge to invoke.
An instructor may need to show a great deal of patience, as students may not be quick to
engage.
These seminars included several components that aided in the building of community in
the class and online settings as well as outside of the explicitly academic arena. The use
of the photographs and welcome video played a significant role in connecting students to
each other with visuals that enabled the learners to link written words to the faces of
those who they saw in class.

6
The learners also took an active role in the running of the discussion boards with each
student taking on the role of moderator of discussions on topics of their choice. This
allowed for the instructor to take on more of an observer role. Some of these discussion
topics led to discussions about the nature of learning communities, including the
community the students were in within this course. Learners openly compared this
community to previous academic and non-academic virtual and face-to-face communities
in which they had been members.
This level of participation carried over into the face-to-face sessions where students made
in class presentations and engaged in cooperative activities. In addition, there was time
for the students to discuss the major paper that each needed to write for the course. This
enabled students to help each other formulate topics, offer suggestions, and share
resources.
As stated earlier, lunch hours also played a valuable role in building the sense of
community and trust, and helped sustained informal interactions that built a sense of
belonging, identity and togetherness. As time progressed, the lunch times became a more
and more critical and integrative part of the learning process in a community context.

Conclusion
Blended learning environments provide the flexibility of learning from a distance and and 
maintaining face­to­face benefits afforded by traditional classroom meetings.  While 
students today enjoy the benefits that go along with being able to take courses from 
anywhere at any time, they are still hungry for that sense of community that is fostered 
through sitting physically next to a classmate. In conclusion we believe when thinking 
about offering courses online, a  consideration has to be made to include some form of 
face­to­face component to help build a sense of community  that is critical to learning.  

References
Dziuban. C. D., Hartman, J. L. & Moskal, P.D. (2004) Blended learning. EDUCAUSE  
Center for Applied Research: Research Bulletin, 2004(7).
Garrison, D.R. & Anderson. T. (2003). E­learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for  
Research and Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 
November 1, 2003, p. 18­23.
Moody, J. (2004). Distance education: Why are the attrition rates so high. The Quarterly  
Review of Distance Education, 5(3), p. 205­210.
Osguthorpe, R. T. & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions 
and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), p. 227­233.

7
Pineheiro, M, Campbell, K, Hirst S. P., & Krupa, E. (2006). Creating appropriate online 
learning environments for female health professionals. Canadian Journal of  
Learning and Technology, 32(1), p. 51­76.
Rovai, A.P. (2003) In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online 
programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), p. 1­16.
Rovai, A.P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The  
Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197­211.
Rovai, A. P. & Jordon, H. M. (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, Retrieved March 
23, 2006 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274.

Acknowledgement
This research is supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research 
Council of Canada (SSHRCC).