The term “blended learning” (BL) has been in frequent use since the beginning of the millenium. In Europe the term is mostly used by practitioners and administrators, and quite seldom by educational researchers, which can have several explanations (Norberg & Jahnke 2014). In North America, blended learning research is rather big in volume, enough for books in research methodology and meta-studies.

Oliver and Trigwell (2005) have pointed out the expression is both unclear and inconsistently used. There is no “blending” theory available and it cannot reasonably be “learning” that is blended, but perhaps teaching or organisation. They remark that the word “learning” should be returned to its rightful owners, the students. In this harsh criticism, they are however not resisting new practices on integrating ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) in courses, but mean that it does not help to talk about “blended”.  My reflection is that it may be more rational to use Vygotsky´s term “obuchenie” instead of “learning”, an untranslatable term which stands for the interactive teaching-learning activity (Cole 2009).

The most common definition of BL is Grahams: a system of blended learning is characterized by the combination of face‐to‐face instruction with computer mediated instruction (Graham 2006, p. 5). The varying definitions of BL has been seen as a weakness and a problem, but also as a strength: it allows teachers to negotiate it´s meaning in everyday experimentation with teaching (Sharpe, Benfield & Francis 2006) or that it constitutes a “boundary object” – it is seen as something positive but unclear at a future horizon in which people show both unity and differentiation (Laumakis, Graham & Dziuban 2009).

What is BL about, even we abstract more ? Here is my suggestion: The ongoing integration of ICTs into mainstream practices. Applied on education: theintegration of ICTs into obuchenie.

There are new ways of understanding BL, or the integration of ICTs into mainstream education activities, that are not blends of a physical place and online place. Power´s “blended online learning” (2008), Irvine, Code and Richard’s “multi-access learning” (2013) and Norberg, Dziuban and Moskal’s “time based blended learning” (2011) show us ICTs as enablers of the teaching and learning process instead, setting “place” as a second perspective behind “time”. Instead of a tension between classroom and online, we have a tension between the synchronous and the asynchronous modalities of a course process in time instead. In this respect, “blended” is not new at all; it is a recurring question in history of how education makes effective use of new technologies; print, blackboard, film, ICTs etc.

“Blended learning” is a term now diminishing in frequency on the Internet, in pace with an ongoing further ICT integration. How can that be?

Luciano Floridi, an information theorist, tells us that we may be the last generation that makes any difference between online and offline. “Digital dualism” is the idea that we have a traditional physical-social world as before, but now also a new, digital, virtual, different, optional and perhaps dangerous world we visit by login and logout procedures. This ontology is hardly sustainable in a time where ICTs come into our everyday life in new ways, closer to us; smartphones as digital assistants, the internet of things, medical implants and telepresence robotics. We live more and more in a one and only ICT-integrated world, Floridi calls it the infosphere. He regards this shaping of a one and only ICT-integrated world as important: “…we are constructing the new environment that will be inhabited by future generations.” That is one background to the “blended” as a temporary conception, who´s time may be up.  

Norberg, A., Jahnke, I (2014) Are You Working in the Kitchen? European Perspectives on Blended Learning. Chapter 17 in Picciano, A., Dziuban, C., Graham, C. (Ed) Blended Learning - Research Perspectives, Volume II. Routledge Cole, M (2009) The Perils of Translation: A First Step in Reconsidering Vygotsky’s Theory of Development in Relation to Formal Education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16: 291–295, 2009, Routledge. Floridi, L. (2014) The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford University Press, London Irvine, V., Code, J. & Richards, L. (2013) Realigning Higher Education for the 21st Century Learner through Multi-Access Learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Teaching and Learning. Vol 9:2, June 2013. Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005) Can 'Blended Learning' Be Redeemed?. E-Learning and Digital Media, Vol. 2 Nr 1, 2005. Norberg, A., Dziuban, C., Moskal, P. (2011) A Time Based Blended Learning Model. On The Horizon Vol 19:3, Emerald Publishing Graham, C. (2006) Blended learning systems; Definition, Current Trends, and Future Directions. In Bonk, C. & Graham, C. (2005). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing Power, M. T. (2008), The Emergence of a Blended Online Learning Environment. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 4 No. 4. pp 503-514 Laumakis, M, Graham, C, Dziuban, C. (2009): The Sloan-C Pillars and Boundary Objects As a Framework for Evaluating Blended Learning, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks - Vol 13:1