Why is multiculturalism an important issue today?

As we are living in an era of particularly rapid, radical change and hyperconnectivity, driven by advanced technology and globalisation on the one hand and environmental and demographic change on the other, we are experiencing an unprecedented level of cross-cultural contact.

News, current affairs and other information channels, delivered in digital “feeds”, bring us into contact with places, people and aspects of the world of which we knew very little. Numerous towns and cities all over the world have become a rich tapestry of multiple cultures representing diverse ethnicities and nationalities. Organisations in the working world have been undergoing a similar transformation. Cross-cultural interaction is not new, but it is the scale, speed and range that is unprecedented.

Migration is a one of the defining stories of humanity: according to the Scalabrini International Migration Institute (2020), “The Bible is a book written by migrants, for migrants and about migrants.” Between 1960 and 2020 there have been consistent increases both in the number of international migrants and the migrant share of global population (Migration Policy Institute), and that trend is set to continue in the forthcoming decades due to demographic factors (ageing and booming populations), economic imbalances and most significantly, climate change. The World Bank states that “migration will become a necessity in the decades to come for countries at all levels of income”; it will therefore need to be strategic, far-sighted and ethically managed.

The accommodation, recognition and integration of such a diverse range of people and cultures will require improved cultural and linguistic knowledge and skills for both the migrants and the people in the countries and organisations in which they live and work. In parallel, digital technology and artificial intelligence are dramatically extending the boundaries of cultural interaction online; they offer vast potential for cultural enrichment but also the risk of cultural homogenisation and impoverishment.

We have a long way to go for an internet that genuinely “connects people”, as Tim Berners-Lee envisaged, rather than just machines. While a UNESCO report showed improved linguistic diversity online, there remains a marked inequality of information on the internet, with strong anglophone linguistic and cultural dominance (58% of web content is in English, but 75% of global population does not speak English, and only 149 of 6000 languages are available in the most popular search engine).

Heightened levels of transmission, interaction and exchange across cultures and between organisations are creating both opportunities and challenges in all areas of society and the workforce. New ideas, new business opportunities and new perspectives are emerging from this exchange, often international and typically technology-mediated, but at the same time, many people are struggling to position themselves in this new “multicultural” context, and to develop the intercultural skills and awareness needed to flourish.

Multiculturalism: forms, policies, enablers

Multiculturalism is “the policy of accommodating any number of distinct cultures within one society without prejudice or discrimination” (Chambers dictionary).

“Multiculturalism” is “the policy of accommodating any number of distinct cultures within one society without prejudice or discrimination” (Chambers dictionary). It is a noun and represents a policy or a belief (-ism). In contrast, the word “multicultural” is an adjective that describes a society or organisation that includes people of many different cultures and beliefs. A society or organisation can therefore become multicultural without design, due to the economic and demographic forces.

Most high income countries depend heavily on immigrants to staff public services such as health and transport and sectors such as hospitality and IT; in 2020 in the UK, foreign born workers represented 21%, 26%, 28% and 25% of all workers in these sectors respectively.

The last 200 years have seen many now high-income countries accommodate large numbers of people from different and distinct cultures and ethnicities, e.g., USA, the Netherlands, Germany. Multiculturalism can take different forms; whether it works depends on how it is conceived and managed, the existing cultural and economic context and whether it actively support two core concepts: diversity and inclusion.

The USA has historically favoured assimilation (e.g. the adoption of names and language of the home country). The Netherlands and the UK have tended towards a policy of accommodation and gradual integration, while the European Union has a policy of actively encouraging intercultural exchange.

Promoting intercultural dialogue is essential for avoiding conflicts, ensuring respect for universal human rights, creating opportunities and solving shared problems, such as the climate, biodiversity and pollution crises. So, given the reality of the climate crisis and of migration in the unequal global economy, a policy of merely accommodating people of different cultures without actively encouraging intercultural exchange is unlikely to be successful. A critical part of an effective multicultural policy is to actively support the existing/native-born residents in coping with the new cultures, especially in economically and educationally disadvantaged areas, and ensuring people have work and training pathways.

Intercultural exchange often takes place at a very local level (e.g. twinned cities, ethnic restaurants) but a coherent policy is required at national level, to support the cultural integration process, and support the existing residents so that they see the benefits rather than the threats. Where there is a lack of such a constructive policy, fear, propaganda and hostility will fill the void. The terminology used can inhibit or create a constructive context for intercultural dialogue. The use of “alien”, an official term in the USA, (recently discouraged), is bound to contribute towards alienation and a less open attitude to foreigners.

Key concepts underpinning multiculturalism

Identity, inclusion, diversity and recognition

According to Max-Neef, identity is one of 9 fundamental human needs, closely associated with a sense of belonging and self-esteem. It is manifest in values, languages and customs, is a basis for self-knowledge and for understanding how one fits in the world. Identity is closely bound up with culture, in that our cultural background (including, especially, family background) is the main formative factor in our identity.

Identity is only significant by virtue of the wider social context in which we exist and is affirmed by positive human contact, which brings a sense of belonging, supporting our sense of inclusiveness. The more limited and narrow contact is with other social groups, the narrower the sense of identity tends to be, to the extent that it can end up becoming purely self-referential, lose the connection with other identities, and become exclusive in its assertion against others. When people explore their family trees, they often discover ethnicities in their family they were not even aware of; understanding identity involves increasing self-knowledge.

Multiculturalism recognises that people have a right to keep their cultural identity and that they should not suffer prejudice or discrimination because of it. However, this depends on people recognising that others’ identity is equally important to their own, i.e., recognising and respecting diversity and plurality – a significant challenge in individualistic and secular societies and impossible in totalitarian regimes. Many isolated indigenous societies respect diversity and plurality as manifest in the natural world around them, recognising the identity of each living thing.

Successful multiculturalism requires more than just recognition, however. Hannah Arendt reminds us:
“..if it is good to be recognised, it is better to be welcomed, precisely because this is something we can neither earn nor deserve.” (Davide Sparti, Nel segno della pluralità: Arendt e la concezione non identitaria dell’identità, 2008) A culture of hospitality (philoxenia) can overcome fear of the stranger (xenophobia).

Culture as ethos

Culture is much more than “a way of life” or a “lifestyle” in that it encompasses values, customs, practices and beliefs which have often developed organically over time.  Etymologically, the word “ethos” is perhaps the most appropriate single term by which to reference culture, as it derives from the Greek meaning “custom” or “culture”. Ethos is the set of beliefs characterising a group/community which shape the behaviour of those in that group. While ethos is only one aspect of culture, it is nevertheless core, so we can think of culture as the ethos of a community.

Culture is not the same as nationality. National boundaries and state names repeatedly change throughout history for a variety of political, military and economic reasons, but culture is the cumulation and expression of customs, practices, ideas and values formed over a period of time, often across generations.

Factors undermining multiculturalism

Increased inequality and the forces of globalisation

Unfortunately, one of the effects of globalisation, unregulated economies and advanced technology is an increase in inequality within countries. A critical factor is inequality of opportunity, which is often keenly felt by those in disadvantaged areas who see an influx of migrants offered language courses and other forms of support. It is a complex challenge; a coherent and integrated set of national and regionally sensitive education, skills, housing and health policies is needed to minimise inequality and hostility to migrants and to avoid undermining multiculturalism.

Cultural impoverishment

The existence of a rich diversity of cultures is something to be celebrated; diversity enriches us, expanding our knowledge and awareness and bringing colour and variety to our lives. If a national or organisational culture becomes rigidly homogenous to the extent of undermining or erasing its diversity of cultures, then cultural impoverishment results. Life becomes monotonous, there is little innovation, the nation/organisation becomes self-referential and struggles to interact effectively and empathetically with other nations or organisations.

Cultural impoverishment results from a lack of intercultural exchange. If policies, such as higher education funding, health or housing policy, are reduced to economic or technological affordances, then the social benefits, which include intercultural exchange, are obscured. Benefits are seen as private and therefore a matter of possession, which leads to jealousy, exclusion and stereotyping along “tribal” fault lines. To reduce these risks, policies that emphasise shared benefit and intercultural education are needed.

Narrow sense of identity

As mentioned above, identity can also become a factor undermining multiculturalism, if it involves exclusiveness and lack of recognition for other identities. One of the dangers of a narrow sense of identity, for example in extremely nationalistic political discourse, is the tendency to view external forces either as threats that must be countered or as allies against these threats (“you are either with us or against us”).

Hannah Arendt put it thus: “tribal nationalism always insists that its own people is surrounded by ‘a world of enemies,’ ‘one against all,’ that a fundamental difference exists between this people and all others. It claims its people to be unique, individual, incompatible with all others, and denies theoretically the very possibility of a common mankind” Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951.

This type of binary polarisation becomes self-perpetuating in that people cling even more tenaciously to the narrow sense of identity as if on a raft in a stormy sea, thus cutting themselves off from opportunities for constructive engagement, collaboration and development.

“Without prejudice or discrimination” (in the definition of multiculturalism above) depends on people being honest about their own identity and not claiming “badges of convenience” for advantage under peer pressure or pitting one cultural identity against another in a divisive fashion, as we so often see in unedifying social media exchanges.

Genuine freedom in society involves reciprocity: respecting others’ cultural identity. For Arendt, as citizens, we disclose our own identities and recognise others’, to create the collective identities essential for participating in sustainable democracy. This is not easy and, besides intercultural skills, requires a process of constant renegotiation.

As Benedetto Croce noted “Freedom of the individual only exists in freedom of the many” (“La libertà al singolare esiste soltanto nelle libertà al plurale.”) Croce, Storia d’Europa nel secolo decimonono, 1932)

Intercultural capabilities

So, what are the intercultural skills and how can people recognise and develop them, given that the rate and intensity of cross-cultural interaction has significantly increased (Adler & Aycan 2018)?
First and foremost, we need to recognise that a good level of education for a child anywhere in the world should afford basic cross-cultural awareness. Secondly, formal education, and increasingly widely accessible informal learning online provide opportunities, though not always sufficient, to gain proficiency in languages, which in turn provide a window of cultural understanding.

However, when we consider the “softer” cross-cultural skills, such as how we interact with those from other cultures and what our attitudes are towards them, there is relatively little guidance and support in post-16 education or training. Such skills are rarely taught in formal education or in workplaces.

The below definition of intercultural capability and social inclusiveness is designed to help organisations and individuals recognise effective intercultural capabilities and the observable behaviours that demonstrate this 21^st century competency, plus the underpinning qualities, e.g. empathy, curiosity, trust.

Intercultural capability and social inclusiveness

The ability to interact sensitively and inclusively, and to facilitate inclusive interaction, with people of different cultures, gender, ethnicity and abilities on an equal basis with respect and empathy, recognising diversity as an opportunity and an advantage that brings new perspectives.

Enabling behaviours (abridged):

• Interact inclusively, challenging bias and disadvantage, for shared purpose
• Understand own & others’ feelings & needs to avoid/solve problems together
• Consider others’ perspectives, recognise multiple human stories

The intercultural opportunity

Cultural diversity is a powerful benefit for organisations and nations because progress and innovation come from the exchange of ideas across cultures; a monoculture is a sterile environment without stimulus or challenge and will tend to become an echo chamber.

The increase in intercultural interaction brings with it significant benefits. These include individual benefits such as improved interpersonal skills and societal benefits such as increased tolerance, understanding and less pressure to conform. For the organisation, benefits include opportunities for innovation, enhanced market knowledge and positioning plus active progress towards becoming a learning organisation.

To leave the final word with Bhikhu Parekh (Rethinking Multiculturalism, 2002):
“Different cultures correct and complement each other, expand each other’s horizon of thought and alert each other to new forms of human fulfilment”.

From Computer Vision to Medicine: Fei-Fei Li and Suchi Saria

Born and raised in China, at the age of 15, Fei-Fei Li moved to the United States with her family. After the degree in physics, she continued her studies in computer science and engineering at Princeton University. Since 2009, she has been an associate professor at Stanford University and director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab (SAIL).
Fei-Fei Li is renowned for her work in computer vision, specifically for leading the ImageNet project. Before this, research in AI was mainly focused on algorithms, which experts and researchers considered superior to data itself. Fei-Fei Li revolutionized this paradigm highlighting the value of large amounts of real data to train machine learning algorithms more effectively and accurately. Launched in 2009, ImageNet is a database of 14 million manually annotated images, with details about the represented objects and their spatial positioning. Objects were classified into over 20,000 categories, including some common ones, such as “balloon” or “strawberry”.

The availability of a wide range of annotated images in ImageNet allowed machine learning and computer vision algorithms to be trained over a wider and diversified dataset, with a significant improvement in performance and reliability. This improved accuracy in computer vision had a direct impact on several practical applications, such as facial recognition, analysis of medical images, automated surveillance systems, and autonomous vehicles.
The success of ImageNet fostered innovation in the field of Deep Learning as well. Artificial Neural Networks – Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) in particular – significantly advanced in image classification accuracy thanks to the availability of a large dataset for training.

Fei-Fei Li’s research and the development of ImageNet was able to catalyze major change in the field of AI, shifting attention to the importance of data and fostering the development of more evolved and reliable computer vision technologies.
In recent years, Fei-Fei Li’s research expanded in Healthcare sector, with the goal of reducing medical errors while enhancing the benefits of ambient intelligence (the use of devices and sensors making physical spaces sensitive and responsive to human presence).

Regarding Healthcare, the contribution of Suchi Saria is to be mentioned.
Suchi Saria is associate professor of computer science, statistics and health policy at Johns Hopkins University – where she also directs the Machine Learning and Healthcare Lab – and founder & CEO of Bayesian Health, a company developing software and AI solutions to assist hospital staff in managing high-risk situations and therapeutic decision-making.

Saria played a pioneering role in applying AI in healthcare, implementing systems able to support disease diagnosis and treatment. She conducted groundbreaking research in early sepsis diagnosis through machine learning and in the development of sensor-based systems to monitor Parkinson’s symptoms progression.
Described by the Sloan Foundation as ‘the future of 21st-century medicine”, her work earned her many awards, recognitions, scholarships and accolades, including the Sloan Research Fellowship and the title of Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.

From Robotics to Ethics: Cynthia Breazeal and Joanna Bryson

American scientist and entrepreneur, founder and director of the Personal Robots Group at the MIT Media Lab, Cynthia Breazeal is considered a pioneer in the field of social robotics and human-machine interaction.
Social robotics is a research field focusing on the development of robots aimed at interacting with humans in a social context. Designed to be perceived as friendly and capable of understanding and responding to human needs, these robots require advanced Artificial Intelligence systems and natural language understanding (Natural Language Processing). But there’s more. Breazeal also explored the impact of non-verbal signals in communication, capable to step up humans/machines interaction and relationship.
Breazeal focused on the concept of “living with AI”, investigating the impact of integrating social robots into daily life; and today her research group’s studies explore areas such as education, paediatrics, wellness, and support for aging individuals.
In 2022, Cynthia Breazeal was appointed President for digital learning at MIT, with the aim to expand knowledge about Artificial Intelligence both within and outside the academic environment. Following this purpose, she launched the MIT RAISE initiative, providing worldwide students and teachers in primary and secondary schools with materials and resources in order to promote awareness and understanding of AI.

However, the social impact of Artificial Intelligence is not a recent topic; it’s been extensively studied since the 1990s by Joanna Bryson, a researcher and professor of Ethics & Technology at the Center for Digital Governance at the Hertie School in Berlin.
Bryson dedicated her studies to the interaction between Artificial Intelligence systems and human societies, providing a major contribution to the definition of governance principles and rights protection. In 1998, she published “Just Another Artifact“, her first article about the ethics of Artificial Intelligence, addressing the perception and conceptualization of AI in society; and how excessively positive or negative expectations can distract from the implied real issues; issues still crucial and debated today. Bryson provides consultancy to governments, agencies, and companies globally, particularly about AI related policies.

From Today to Tomorrow: Women Changing AI

In 2017, Margaret Mitchell founded Google’s Ethical AI research team, co-directed with Timnit Gebru. In 2021, both left the company following the issue of a controversial article where, together with linguist Emily Bender, they pointed out risks and costs related to the use of Large Language Models (LLMs), described as “Stochastic Parrots“, a term presumably coined by Emily Bender.
Since then, Mitchell and Gebru have been recognized as among the leading and most influential advocates for Diversity & Inclusion in AI. They emphasized how their absence could negatively affect the quality of new technologies as well as the importance of building not just larger and more efficient models but also safe and ethical ones.
The linguistic Emily Bender, albeit not a researcher in this sector, is now one of the top voices in the AI debate. As a matter of fact, we now talk about a “Bender rule“, as her studies urged AI researchers to indicate the languages they use to develop their models, avoiding the false and potentially harmful misconception that they work the same way in non-English-speaking world.

Last but not least, Daniela Amodei stands out among the prominent women in AI: along with her brother Dario, she is the co-founder of Anthropic, an emerging and promising startup in the field. Daniela Amodei was also vice president for safety & policy at OpenAI, contributing to the foundation of ChatGPT. In 2021, with her brother and other collaborators, she left the company to start Anthropic. The startup got noticed for its pioneering research on mechanistic interpretability, a technique allowing developers to perform something similar to a brain scan to understand the internal processes of an AI system, rather than relying just on its textual outputs. The chatbot they developed, Claude, operates following a “constitution” driving its behavior, based on principles from trustworthy sources, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. Amodei claims that this kind of initiatives are essential to foster an innovative and safer approach to Artificial Intelligence.

Once again, we have seen how the concepts of ethics and inclusivity have to play a pivotal role in the field of Artificial Intelligence. Only through the diversification of perspectives and skills, in particular enforcing women’s presence and active participation, we can rely on a more ethical, balanced and truly representative development of AI, meeting the demands of the society as a whole.

Both the teaching/training entity and the learner need specific competencies to be able to practise and to benefit fully from the blended learning approach.

As digital learning matures, it is becoming clear, however, that without sound learning design, experienced and innovative teaching and learning practitioners and a student-centred online experience, digital technology by itself cannot provide genuine interaction.

Let’s remind ourselves of the differences between blended and hybrid learning. Blended is designed to give equal importance to physical and online learning, combining the two modes for an optimal learning experience across the course, while hybrid learning is driven more by more student choice of mode, enabled by flexible provision of materials online and in-person.

Hybrid learning is in fact the approach that many universities, colleges and schools took in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The limitations were clear in that many students, living in a time of great disruption, were not equipped – in terms of financial and logistical resources, skills and experience – to self-manage in such a way as to benefit fully from this model. This experience reveals the key competencies needed on the part of learners in blended and hybrid learning models, not to mention the demands placed on the learning providers.

Learning Provider competencies

It goes without saying that the learning provider needs to have high-level expertise in the subject or content involved, as well as the full range of teaching and learning abilities, from group facilitation and management, including of active learning, to instruction skills to highly developed listening and communication skills, etc. Here we will focus on the competencies required to plan, manage and deliver blended learning.

The Christensen Institute’s Blended Learning Universe (BLU) reports on a study undertaken to identify the most important skills for blended teaching, besides the foundational dispositions for effective teaching and the basic technology skills. The BLU study uncovered four key skills specific to blended learning:

• Online Integration – the ability to effectively combine online instruction with in-person instruction.
• Data Practices – the ability to use digital tools to monitor student activity and performance in order to guide student growth.
• Personalization – the ability to implement a learning environment that allows for student customization of goals, pace, and/or learning path.
• Online Interaction – the ability to facilitate online interactions with and between students.

Highlighting and ensuring proficiency in these four skills is an effective way to help counter some of the risks and pitfalls inherent in blended learning. The integration skill enables the delivery of a blended course which is a coherent process, in which the online and in person modes mutually enhance each other and together reinforce and enrich the learning experience. The risk of learners not engaging effectively with the online sessions and materials, or of not performing consistently across both modes is mitigated by the use of learner analytics (“data practices”) to support students by monitoring engagement, interaction and performance.

Personalisation ensures that the learning experience is meaningful for each student rather than an anonymous process to follow, although the degree of personalisation will be constrained by the time and resources available. Realistically, the skill here is in ensuring that the learning environment created has enough adaptability and flexibility built in to allow learners to follow the learning path at their own speed and in their own way. Finally, the considerable risk of students not being facilitated to interact effectively and meaningfully online with the teacher/facilitator and with each other – a very common criticism of online and blended courses – is addressed by the fourth key skill, which in practice requires high level facilitation skills in combination with digital skills in the relevant platform.

Systemic thinking, project and process management, learning agility

Of course, the learning provider competencies required also vary according to which theoretical framework is used to underpin the blended learning provided. In the Complex Adaptive Blended Learning System, an ecosystem of 6 inter-related elements, each with their own ecosystem variables, each needs to be designed and managed and made to function together with the others as a whole. More than a learning or course design challenge, this is a learning project and process management challenge; there are so many interdependencies to manage, risks to mitigate and factors to plan for – including temporal factors – that some proficiency in project and process management is a requirement.

A more refined framework such as Simon Thomson’s SP&M may make the blended learning design process clearer and more manageable, since it involves three inter-related steps:

• identify and select knowledge areas that students should learn;
• identify and select most effective approaches to student learning;
• identify and select most appropriate ways for students to access learning.

Being able to perform these analyses and selections requires a high level of knowledge of all the content available in the requisite area that can be taught or conveyed in a blended environment, expertise in teaching and learning methods and their pros and cons in blended courses, and experience and understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the different mixed modes for access.

The latter is challenging, given that online learning is a fast-evolving area, amid the changing context of digital transformation and the widespread reassessment of teaching and learning practice; models are being developed, practised and evaluated all the time. To operate effectively in this context requires learning agility, the ability to learn rapidly from new experiences, to be willing and able to try new things outside of one’s comfort zone, flexibility towards others on similar journeys of discovery – both learners and educators/facilitators – and adaptability to the rapidly evolving context and expectations of learners.

Digital relationship management, digital self-management and digital presentation skills are equally vital, as well as the “hard” digital skills of understanding and optimising the platform used, analysing and interpreting the data and adjusting the model when necessary.

Furthermore, to then combine the subject/content pedagogies with the subject/content modalities with the L&T method/pedagogy modalities into a coherent learning experience requires systemic thinking: the ability to view complex systems as a whole and understand/build the links between them, with awareness of how each link/interaction affects the whole, the end result. Systemic thinking is therefore a key competency required of any blended learning course provider.

Design and the learner experience

As Diana Laurillard has said, “teaching and learning is an iterative design cycle”. A key differentiating factor in the efficacy and value of blended learning is the design – and iterating and adapting the design in response to learner experience and outcomes. Learning design is a topic we shall revisit in the next blog post on how to achieve the optimal blend, and we have already seen in the earlier post on theories and models how fundamental high quality, mindful design of the learning environment and experience is.

A service design or design thinking approach puts the needs of the user/the learner at the centre of the process. The key thing to remember with blended learning is that the design of the learning experience is even more important because of the variables and risks involved. Assuming that digital technology can do this work for you would be a mistake. Yet we often see this assumption underlying learning provision and solution; for example if the material and sessions are made available online and can be accessed at any time, we might assume that the learners will consult and digest them and when they attend face-to-face sessions will be prepared to discuss them, but often this is not the case.

There can be many reasons for this, from access to technology, to other demands or timing issues, or undeveloped learner self-management. Consequently, the design has to take into account the switches between online and offline modes and manage the boundaries between modes, ensuring continuity, seamlessness and efficacy of the learning experience.

It is a good idea to construct a to-be blueprint of the learning experience, in which the content, learning and teaching methods to be used and modes through which the learning is to be accessed are specified for each of the stages of the learning journey, with resultant learning outcomes/benefits highlighted. The learning design also needs to be responsive to organisational and learner needs, of course, and deliver a return on the investment for the organisation. Creating such a learning journey blueprint is a co-design activity, which should involve representatives of the learners themselves as well as facilitators and support team members of the organisation (or of other organisations, if a partnership as is often the case with MOOCs).

The competencies required for the co-creation of such a blueprint are many, and are not generally standard in learning and teaching staff. Design capabilities, user experience expertise, empathy mapping, context analysis and synthesis, project and process management and well-developed digital skills, as mentioned above, are just some of the key competencies required. Teaching, learning and training experts are used to designing courses and curricula, but with more focus on the subject/content and the learning outcomes. Stitching all of the above together, and making sure no learner falls through the cracks, becomes detached or disengaged, is a more challenging; it is of course it is a process, not merely a product.

Learner Competencies and Capabilities

Autonomous learners, self-knowledge and motivation

For the learner, gaining the full benefits of a course delivered via blended learning is far from straightforward and involves a high degree of agency, hence the need to exercise great care and careful management if providing for non-adults. Fully developed blended learning works best with autonomous adult learners, but even then engagement, reflection and interaction cannot be assumed.

Indeed, if the learner has a say in the co-design of the learning solution and an active role in the learning process – rather than is just assumed to actively participate – then there is far more likelihood of their continuous engagement and interaction. As we saw in the previous blog post of this series, learner autonomy has a direct effect on the efficacy of the blended learning programme. If the learner is self-directed and also willing and able to practise active learning in group situations, they have sufficient autonomy to not only gain the benefits of the process themselves, but also create further benefit for the other learners through the group/social learning process, as well as to offer valuable feedback for the facilitator/trainer.

However, if the style or medium of the blended learning provided is too limited or dependent on one vision, for example, the format is exclusively expert-led sessions (online and in person) with Q&A afterwards, then the autonomous learner may not engage due to frustration with the format because it does not offer them the opportunity for meaningful contribution and the style of presentation does not stimulate them.

Autonomous learners are also more likely to have developed their self-knowledge: they know their own strengths and weaknesses, understand their own preferences and inclinations and they know with what and how to motivate themselves. Less well-developed learners do not have this self-knowledge and typically have not developed mental maps that enable them to process and critique new learning. Thus, when confronted with the complexity and variables of a blended learning programme they may struggle to fit this into their own incipient mental models, and may need support to make sense of the approach and to understand the guiding principles and therefore to be motivated.

While autonomous learners tend to be self-motivated, they still need to be motivated to engage and participate in all the diverse components and modes of the blended learning course, so in the design phase the learning provider needs to have developed a good understanding of motivations, inclinations and preferences per learner type.

For many learners, whether in formal or work-based education, finding the motivation and tenacity to consistently engage with and perform on the course is a major challenge, especially if they have other challenges to manage in their lives. Again, the blended learning design needs to be able to accommodate and succeed despite these contextual challenges.

Learning styles and learning intelligences

Learner needs, preferences and abilities, then, need to be the guiding principles for the balance and format of the blended learning solution. One effective way to optimise the engagement of diverse autonomous learners – including learners with accessibility challenges or learning difficulties – and to stimulate their contribution is by making the content and format available in multiple media (and of course, where appropriate, languages) to cater for different learning styles. Some people learn – and indeed memorise – predominantly through visual stimuli, while others respond better to reading texts and still others to auditory stimuli. In fact, learning which can involve the different senses and require physical interaction by the learner – in short kinaesthetic learning – typically makes the online learning experience more effective and memorable.

In order to ensure diverse types of learners are engaged and stimulated, a choice or diversity of media and mode is advisable, as well as using different techniques in the content presentation and reflection, to ensure different styles of learning are accommodated and stimulated: active experimentation, real-world experience, reflective observation and abstract conceptualisation (Kolb 2005). Learners tend to have predominant learning styles rather than just to use one style only; their “door to learning” is one style but then then combine or supplement this with other styles. A blended learning solution that requires the learner to utilise all of these learning styles will be more effective in delivering the learning benefits, and will deliver added value for the learner by stimulating the development of a balanced learning style, enhancing their versatility and their learning agility.

Cognitively, different content presented in different media and modes will stimulate different intellectual learning responses. For example, visual-spatial intelligence will be stimulated in learners through material presented or opportunities to participate that are characterised by images and by spaces, such as buildings or rooms, and can be mapped or rendered in diagram form. Learners with predominant logical-mathematical intelligence will perform better where there are patterns to be observed and deductions to be made, while those with high linguistic-verbal intelligence will respond well to spoken and written content, especially if there is an opportunity for them to contribute to the linguistic or verbal output.

Gardner (Frames of Mind, The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, 1983) included eight types in this plurality of intelligence, and thereby demonstrated the limitations and fallacy of simple IQ tests or single measures of intelligence. As with learning styles, the learner will benefit from a range of their intelligences being stimulated and utilised in the cognitive process, since even if they prefer one over others, their cognitive capabilities their intellectual versatility will be developed.

Balancing comfort with development

As we can see, a vital point around blended learning models (and indeed other types of learning) emerges from this analysis: successful blended learning design depends on the careful balance of two opposing but complementary aspects:

1. the elements that engage the learner because they align with their capabilities and expectations;
2. the elements that stretch the learner to develop not only their competency in the subject matter but also in the very process of learning itself.

If the learner does not encounter sufficient familiar process, format and styles in the course of learning then there is a major risk of disengagement, non-completion or non-participation, but equally if the learner is not stimulated and supported to try new styles of learning, new learning strategies and unfamiliar learning styles then there is a risk of demotivation, dissatisfaction, boredom and sterile learning process.

In short, part of the responsibility of the teacher/facilitator/trainer is to stimulate new learning strategies and approaches in the learner and to help them become proficient not merely in the subject matter, but also in learning to learn and in developing their learning agility (including critical thinking etc.).
Well-designed blended learning is particularly well-suited to achieving both of these fundamental objectives.

Catering for skills gaps

Many learning providers take for granted that learners have a) access to the necessary learning devices and environments and b) that learners have the digital and adaptability skills to be able to negotiate these different devices and environments and move seamlessly between them.

With regard to b), many educational organisations work to enhance and develop the digital skills of their students, but some assume, mistakenly, that just because those students may use social media that they will be able to negotiate a virtual education platform or interact successfully in a workgroup online. So, effort needs to be spent ensuring that learners feel comfortable on the platform and that they have the collaborative and digital skills necessary for interacting effectively and appropriately in online environments.

In professional education, digital skills gaps that have an impact on learning effectiveness are the responsibility of the organisation, or specifically the HR department, yet sometimes staff are required to sink or swim on new systems or in online workshops, without sufficient training. More often, organisations do not manage to communicate the strategy around online training or follow up with opportunities for feedback or with discussion sessions, quizzes, workshops and opportunities to put the learning into practice. Training can easily be forgotten if it is not repeated, encountered in different contexts or, best of all, applied in a real work situation.

Learning Capability

With regard to a), the learner context may include all sorts of constraints which prevent them from getting the most out of the online learning part of the blended learning programme. Here are just a few examples:

• caught by the digital divide and/or poverty, for example, living in an area or context in which a good internet connection and access to devices are not routinely available;
• having a family situation which does not allow them sufficient opportunity, peace or privacy to interact online effectively, for example as a parent of a young child or as a family carer;
• having accessibility problems due to learning or physical disabilities or neurodiversity issues, so that they require special solutions to be able to access and participate meaningfully;
• being in a family situation characterised by conflict, a lack of harmony because of mental health, addiction, violence or other social and economic issues;
• having travel difficulties (transport means or distance, for example) which prevent them from engaging in the face-to-face discussions where these are designed to enrich and bring clarity and deeper meaning to the online learning process.

Clearly, it is not possible for learning providers to be able to take account of and provide special measures to mitigate every one of these constraints and risks. Nevertheless, in the learning design, this does highlight that learner competencies are not the only vital consideration: learner capabilities are also critical. It is perfectly possible to have a learner with high level cognitive, digital and/or affective/psychomotor learning abilities, as well as the skills listed above, but if their situation makes it impossible for them to put these abilities into practice then they do not have the capabilities needed.

The capability approach, in the context of equality and how we evaluate a person’s abilities and how much support they need, was created by Amartya Sen in his book “The Idea of Justice” (2010, pp 231-247). If we apply this theory here, a person may have the resources to participate fully on a blended learning course (financial resources to pay, the skills to engage and learn and the time available) but if they don’t have the capability to deploy those resources then they will not be able to benefit from the blended learning. Lack of the necessary capability may include having a disability, being located in a place from where accessing the learning is impossible or living in a family/personal situation which makes their engagement and participation impossible or very much compromised.

The blended learner designer must also, therefore, consider the capability factor. The risks and variables are greater in blended learning than in traditional face-to-face learning, but equally, access and interaction can actually be enhanced in the online component of a well-designed, sensitive and well-managed blended learning programme.

Firstly, let’s deal with a matter of terminology. Blended learning and hybrid learning are overlapping and often used interchangeably, but there are important differences between the two approaches.

While blended learning integrates online and face-to-face delivery modes to design a mixed-mode learner experience across the course, with some elements delivered in person and others online, hybrid learning is more student-driven in that the learner can decide through which mode (online or face-to-face) they would like to access each and all the learning materials and sessions. In a helpful analogy, Simon Thomson likens hybrid learning to a hybrid car in that you can choose which power delivery source (electric or traditional engine) to use, depending on logistics or the journey you will take.

Jisc also highlights the greater degree of choice exercised by learners in the hybrid learning approach, a view endorsed by Roberto Prieto of EIT Digital (2021), who emphasises the irreplaceable nature of the value attributed to face-to-face learning in blended learning: “Unlike hybrid learning, blended learning does not compromise on the unique aspects of face-to-face interactions”.

The online component is challenging to deliver, however. It is important to recognise that online learning is not and can never be simply a case of transferring the traditional teaching and learning model online. Initially, under pressure created by the Covid-19 pandemic, many providers struggled with this, as they had not conceived of digital teaching and learning as a new and distinct practice, a systemic solution, which requires a different mindset and a range of skills, in the creation, management, delivery and utilisation of the courses, not generally exercised in traditional classroom teaching.

Models of blended learning

For the learner, previously accustomed in formal education and professional or work-based education to being merely the recipient of knowledge and information conveyed through the teacher or through various media, the shift to blended and hybrid learning represents a rich opportunity to moderate how, when, in what order and for how long the learning takes place. This results in a more andragogical model of learning in which the learner can be self-directed. Not all learners, however, have the necessary motivation and skills to benefit from self-directed learning. We shall explore the implications of the andragogical theory of learning below.

Positioning blended learning in a framework of learning theories

Tony Bates, a respected online education expert and experienced practitioner based in Ontario, Canada, has suggested that there is perhaps a need for a theory for blended learning. I tend to agree. Blended learning reflects the range of teaching and learning possibilities inherent in combining modes of delivery for learning, online (including mobile) and in-person, the former of which is evolving rapidly as digital technology advances.

So, does it make sense to focus so much on the mode of delivery, potentially at the expense of the objectives behind learning teaching and training? The latter include having a significant impact in the development of the individual and delivering learning outcomes which enhance knowledge and capabilities, in an engaging, co-designed learning experience. As Bates points out, good practices derive from theories being tested and put into practice; without the guidance of a theoretical framework, we are in danger of mere experimentation, which is certainly one valuable means of learning, but not sufficient by itself. Lets look at some of the blended learning theories that have emerged so far.

Complex Adaptive Blended Learning System

Wang, Han and Yang (2015) proposed a theory of the Complex Adaptive Blended Learning System comprising an ecosystem of 6 inter-related elements co-operating in a dynamic and adaptive relationship, a framework for the design of a blended learning system. The six components are as below, and each breaks down into sub-components:

• the learner (researcher, collaborator, practitioner etc)
• the teacher (facilitator, moderator etc)
• the technology (online, asynchronous, offline etc)
• the content (problem-based learning, collaborative learning etc)
• the learning support (services for learning)
• the institution (organisation, strategy, infrastructure etc).

What is interesting about this theory is that it is context-agnostic, i.e., it can be used in any context of learning, whether work or formal education. Here, there is a useful distinction between “content”, meaning learning method such as problem-based, and “technology” which is essentially the mode of delivery. This framework delineates the context for blended learning and is a useful map for designing a blended learning course.

Community of Enquiry

Another well-known theory for blended learning is the Community of Enquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000; Garrison 2009). This has three overlapping spheres of social, teaching and cognitive. At the heart of this theory are two key principles: firstly, that active learning is effective learning, following the theory of John Dewey and others, and secondly, that the environment in which the learning takes place is critical for the success and impact of the learning. This chimes with Laurillard’s emphasis on context.

The Community of Enquiry model and is another very useful framework for designing blended learning; it has at its core community learning and has much in common with Wenger’s community of practice models. We are after all social beings, and we make sense of the world through others’ shared experiences.  Our own experiences, without comparison and sharing with others, would have little meaning.

In this theory, there are three types of key processes to be managed around the educational experience: setting the climate (teaching – social), regulating the learning (cognitive-teaching) and supporting discourse (social-cognitive). Similarly, there are three different types of engagement to stimulate and manage: engagement with the content, engagement with participants, engagement with direction/guidance. Due to this elegant and inclusive simplicity, Community of Enquiry is then also a very valuable framework for management a blended learning programme, though obviously it can be applied to many other learning initiatives too.

Figure: Community of Inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000)

Subject, Pedagogy and Modality framework

More recently, a framework for hybrid education was created by Simon Thomson (Director of Hybrid Learning, University of Manchester). The SP&M framework leans on and significantly adapts the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework proposed by Koehler and Mishra (2006).
Rather than technology, Thomson recommends modality, since the former term is rather vague and tends to encourage a technocentric approach. Thomson also prefers subject to content, as content implies resources and subject knowledge fits better with the academic perspective of teaching and learning.

The SP&M framework asks three key questions for the design of hybrid learning:

• What do you want your students to learn? (What knowledge and learning)
• What pedagogies will you use to enable this? (With which L&T methods, e.g. problem-based learning, social learning etc.)
• Which teaching modes will be most effective for this? (When and where, i.e. online, F2F, synchronous/asynchronous)

Using Thomson’s framework, the blended learning designer can identify the subject pedagogy to be used, the subject modality and the pedagogy modality. Using these overlapping domains is a powerful and elegantly simple way to view and design flexible learning provision.

SPaM Framework © 2022 by Simon Thomson (licensed under CC BY 4.0)

The SP&M model was designed for higher education, while in professional education (a fully andragogical world), the term content would probably work better than subject, teaching and learning method would be more meaningful than pedagogy, while modality or mode would remain the best term to describe the where and when of the blended model, which is why I have used it throughout these blog posts.

Pedagogy, andragogy and heutagogy

The term “pedagogy” is used in different ways across education. It is widely used to describe the art and science of teaching, and this usage has become mainstream. However this obscures the Greek origins of the word which imply teaching of young people, specifically. Post antiquity, as teaching and learning has evolved, formal education, which in centuries past was essentially the schooling of children and young people, has extended its boundaries to include adult learning of many types. In this way, one could argue that the evolution of teaching and learning has outdated the term pedagogy. Hence the use of the term andragogy, for “the art and science of helping adults to learn” (Australian VET Research Association).

The term andragogy was coined in 1833 by a German educator, Alexander Kapp, in the context of German classicism and his revival of Platonic ideals on adult education, specifically education being the formation of character including ethical and spiritual development (paideia). This educational philosophy is the basis of “bildung”, the untranslatable German concept meaning the deliberate cultivation of the holistic self for the enactment of a responsible purpose in society, including “value consciousness and critical knowledge developed in response to education” (Danner 1994). Bildung was seen by Humboldt as a personal flowering of all the individual’s abilities equally (the antithesis of the knowledge compartmentalisation and specialisation that has characterised modern academia and the professions).

These bildung-influenced aspects of andragogy have been rather neglected over the course of time, but in the 1950s US, Malcolm Knowles developed the theory of andragogy extensively into the version we know today. That said, Knowles’ theory was far closer to the bildung concept than is often recognised, echoing the former in at least three respects when describing the outcomes of adult education: “Adults should acquire the skills necessary to achieve the potentials of their personalities”; “Adults should understand the essential values in the capital of human experience”; “Adults should understand their society and should be skilful in directing social change” (quoted in infed.org).

Knowles’ most influential adult learning theory is the set of principles that underlie adult learning and have become the six defining principles of andragogy, which is self-directed learning:
(i) the need to know is the reason for adult learning;
(ii) agency of the adult learner, knowingly responsible for their own education;
(iii) experience is the basis for learning;
(iv) readiness to learn due to the relevance of the learning;
(v) problem rather than content-centred orientation to learning;
(vi) motivation to learn.

Finally, heutagogy, (Stewart Hase of Southern Cross University and Chris Kenyon, 2000) was presented as the next step in the evolution of learning: from pedagogy to andragogy to heutagogy and self-determined learning. As we can see from the diagram below, while in pedagogy learning is teacher-led, in andragogy, self-directed and instructor-guided, in heutagogy, learning is self-determined, problem-solving (and problem perceiving) as well as self-adjusting. Hase and Kenyon argue persuasively that heutagogy enables learners, and therefore both organisations and individuals, to develop the capability to cope with contemporary change and complexity. Self-determined adult learners, with well-developed problem-solving abilities, are able to apply their learning in new, unanticipated and unprecedented situations (Hase and Kenyon, 2007). In short, they develop that most vital of 21^st century competencies, learning agility.

So where does blended learning fit in this hierarchy of learning theories? The answer lies in the fact that blended and hybrid learning are not theories but methodological approaches, so can be applied across and within each of the pedagogical, andragogical and heutagogical models. However, on further analysis, we can see that in practice blended learning is less compatible with both pedagogy and heutagogy, and this has implications for its application and development.

Practices associated with blended learning

For the reasons described in the first blog post in this series, blended learning in practice is difficult to pin down. However, there are several practice models commonly associated with blended learning. Primary among these is the concept of the “flipped classroom”. This term denotes the practice of inverting what is done in traditional face-to-face teaching with what is typically done in the learner’s own time, so that classroom time is used for interaction, discussion and shared reflection whereas the learner’s own time online is used for reading material or covering the traditional content.  Like most of the blended learning models, the flipped classroom enhances the learning experience by switching or rotating the locus of learning.

This practice is certainly innovative and is likely to lead to a richer learning experience, making use of the diverse perspectives within the classroom (traditionally kept passive) to build on what is understood by the individual learner. The flipped classroom is compatible with andragogy as it is instructor guided, objective based and there is an element of self-direction in the personal learning time. However, we cannot describe it as heutagogy, as it is not self-determined as the content is generally decided in the provider-defined course curriculum.

Let’s consider the other key practices associated with blended learning and hybrid learning and examine how they align with andragogic and heutagogic theories,

• Rotation models, in which learners rotate between several different activities/exercises, one of which is online:
  • Station rotation – learners are assigned in groups to “stations”, where they focus on one task, e.g. defining the problem or discussing alternatives using online examples then move to the next station, covering all stations equally;
  • Lab rotation – learners rotate between a computer lab or similar and face-to-face learning;
  • Individual rotation – individual learners rotate between online and face-to-face in a pattern that matches their learning styles and needs;

As is the case with flipped learning, rotation models switch or alternate the traditional locus of learning in a pattern and are likely to lead to greater learning agility, as they involve exploring the topic in different contexts, discussing or applying what has been learnt in one context or medium in another ( e.g., group) context.

• Flex (or Hyflex) learning – online learning is central but flexibility is the key and facilitator/teacher support is provided when needed;
• A la carte – learners can choose which activities or sessions they want to take face-to-face and which online, and they will have the support of the trainer/teacher when needed
• Enriched virtual learning (majority online) – there are some on site face to face sessions, but the majority of the learning can be done virtually.
• Enriched face-to-face learning – the majority of learning is done in person, typically in groups, but is supplemented by online materials made available.

Figure: Blended learning modes mapped to learning theories

The diagram above attempts to map blended learning practices with educational theories. The key differentiator is the degree of autonomy of the learner. As we can see, the more autonomous – or heutagogical – the learner is, up to a certain point, the more compatibility there is with these flexible blended models; practising the à la carte, flipped classroom or flex model is not compatible with traditional pedagogical models, for example.

But equally, fully self-determined learning, where adult learners set their own learning objectives, content, schedule and delivery mode, may not be fully compatible with complex blended models such as flipped or synchronised online learning, as these require a strong element of organisation/learning provider/teacher planning and delivery.

A hybrid learning approach allows more choice on the part of the learner, so in that sense it is more compatible with self-determined learning, but the learner still does not have control over the choice of learning materials, provider and content. This very simple and somewhat crude analysis shows how central the degree of learner autonomy is to the design of the blended learning solution. It also shows that Knowles’ six principles of adult learning, as encapsulated in the andragogical model, are highly compatible with blended learning practices.

In essence, blended learning is a learning and teaching approach that combines face-to-face, online and mobile learning, with the aim of making each mode mutually reinforcing.

Because the approach has become so central to education strategies of all types, a trend intensified since the Covid pandemic, there is a varied array of definitions of blended learning in circulation. Many L&D experts would perhaps agree that there is a widespread tendency to make blended learning mean what we would like it to mean, and to use it as an umbrella term for a broad range of desirable modern learning and teaching practices.

This tendency is the result of the speed of developments in digital technology outpacing the evolution and developing practice of teaching and learning theories. There is therefore some uncertainty and confusion both for organisations and for the learners themselves as to exactly what blended learning is in practice and how they might implement it and benefit from it. This blog article series aims to unpack the term and provide historical context, a theoretical framework and some indications for effective application, development and refinement of the concept, fit for the future of work and learning in the digital age.

Contextual factors and origins

To quote Diana Laurillard (2019), “the context in which the student finds themselves matters as much in how they learn as the cognitive demands of the task you give them”. Blended learning or digital technology-enhanced learning has opened up a plethora of different contexts for learning. And we are still learning about how best to manage, accommodate, alternate and optimise these for an edifying, effective, joined-up and rewarding learning experience. Learning has always been technology-enhanced in some way (examples below), so while we maximise the opportunities afforded by digital technology, we must make sure we don’t lose sight of the core principles and pleasure in learning.

Digital transformation represents both an enormous opportunity and an irresistible force for organisations today. Historically, the process started around the 1970s, when computing power and “the information age” began to take off, though obviously there were significant advances in information management and access well before that date.

From approximately 2007, the transition from analogue to digital as the primary mode of storage was for the most part already complete, at least in the global north and the higher income countries. It is in this digital context that blended learning has become a powerful and ever more essential part of modern teaching and learning practice.

However, as a method, blended learning has far older origins. We can trace the roots of blended and hybrid learning (slightly different methods, as we shall discuss later) back to distance education, which has a long and rich heritage. Given that traditional face-to-face teaching and learning models have been established for millennia, the online part of blended learning is where the innovation was needed.

As Anderson and Simpson from the University of Otago described in their 2012 paper, distance learning is not new: “People have always learned through open and flexible means. We think of preachers, early itinerant storytellers, wandering minstrels, and groups of performers as early teachers. Great thinkers also gathered around them people who were keen to listen, to debate, and to share ideas.”

Across the globe from ancient India to China to the Middle East, Africa, Europe and far west, methods of distance learning have been used to inform, educate and influence, whether for religious or secular purposes. From cuneiform clay tablets in Mesopotamia to whistled languages which are still used across the globe and can be heard over distances as far as 5 miles, to the distance teaching from elders or religious leaders in cultures such as Aboriginal and native Indian, human ingenuity in distance learning and teaching has always been evident.

Heritage and enabling technologies

Correspondence courses

The accelerated rate of technological change, from the invention of the printing press to the widespread use of postal correspondence to television and radio has since enabled the planned and organised delivery of distance learning. Indeed, in 1840s England, the advent of standard postal rates enabled the first correspondence courses, such as those of Isaac Pitman teaching shorthand to students via postcards sent in the postal system.

In the second half of the 19^th century, the Society to Encourage Studies at Home, a correspondence School in the US, was founded by Anna Eliot Ticknor and Wolsey Hall, Oxford was established as a distance learning college, while the University of London established its External Programme in 1858. Meanwhile, in Berlin, Charles Toussaint and Gustav Langenscheidt launched a correspondence learning based language course in 1856, and in 1877 the correspondence school Fondation d’Eyrolles was established in France. Many of the early correspondence courses had limited success, however, as they were constrained by postal delays and, compared to modern methods, the one-way nature of the teaching and learning dynamic.

Radio and television-based learning

Radio and television accelerated the diffusion of distance learning and provided more flexibility in terms of delivery, presentation and control, as well as allowing for the tailoring of content to different learners. The 20^th century is characterised by exponential advances via these media of learning, and from about 1970, by the rapid development of computing media, including mainframe computers, CD-ROMs, floppy discs, microfiches and, finally, the internet and mobile phones.

In the late 1930s and 40s radio broadcast distance learning programmes were initiated in several US cities including Chicago (school-level) and Louisville (university/college level). In the case of Chicago, there is a very striking parallel with the change in learning modes we are grappling with today. The idea of radio broadcasts for elementary schools was a response to a polio outbreak the city was suffering, just as the COVID-19 pandemic has hastened the digital transformation of university education; innovation often occurs in challenging times!

Meanwhile in Australia, Adelaide Miethke launched the School of the Air, which used the radio network to broadcast school lessons to children in the remote Australian outback; a real challenge for achieving engagement in distance learning! This model has evolved enormously with the internet, since the isolation of remote communities can be broken down through genuine two-way interaction. In fact, Martin Dougieamas, the founder of Moodle, one of the earliest Learning Management Systems, grew up as a child of School of the Air in the 1970s, so he developed a deep insight into distance learning.

By the early to mid-1950s, television was being used as a medium for college-level distance learning, especially in the US, in Chicago, Iowa and Houston, with mixed success. It is noteworthy that those who pioneered these early attempts to harness the power of television for learners saw the television not as a standalone source of learning, but rather as an extension of the classroom. Enhanced accessibility was seen as a significant benefit. These are the beginnings of the vision for blended learning, many features of which were then greatly advanced by the Open Universities from the 1970s, with their emphasis on flexibility, remote learning, learner choice, part-time study, work-based learning and continuing education.

Open Universities

The Open University in the UK was planned in the 1960s, and originally the vision of Michael Young, who coined the term “meritocracy” (as a warning). The vision of this “University of the Air” was one of self-empowerment through widely accessible high-quality learning, open to all, that enriches society. In a rare and inspired example of joined-up government policymaking that actually went so far as to deliver innovative change and improvement, the Open University was founded in 1969, and has since revolutionised the world of adult learning, paving the way for many of the digital learning innovations we see today, such as MOOCs.

From the early days of pioneering high quality educational broadcasts in collaboration with the BBC, the OU has evolved into a global player, focussed on inclusive, flexible, and above all, open education. The model of the open university was also implemented with great success in a wide range of countries, notably in the 1970s in Canada, Germany, Spain and since then has proliferated all over the world.

The motivating factor for many of these more modern distance education initiatives was a desire for more social equality, i.e., to make learning available to those who could not afford it, had disabilities or other impediments to accessing traditional education or could not afford to travel to the centres of learning. This principle lives on today in the form of free/low-cost Massive Online Open Courses, which offer a vast range of new and topical virtual courses that can be accessed from anywhere, though we need to be realistic and acknowledge that MOOCs are not necessarily free and are rarely massive.

Providers of the early learning opportunities described above were also motivated by the fact that the knowledge-empowered citizens could contribute more constructively to society, just as today workers empowered by learning, and crucially the ability to learn with agility, can contribute more effectively to the changing world of work.

Computer-based and multimedia learning

The third phase of development in distance and blended learning, from the 1980s, was characterised by the use of multimedia, such a CD-ROMs, floppy discs, microfiches, audio and video cassettes, and computer-assisted learning. The learner experience was centred around a computer terminal or an audio-visual device but was vastly improved in terms of the range of learning resources available and their multimedia delivery, providing sound and video and could be controlled by the teacher or the learner on the device. These developments not only allowed for wider circulation, access and tailoring of training and learning materials, but also the monitoring of course completion; the beginnings of a more rounded virtual learning experience. This multimedia phase proved to be a boom time for training, especially in the work context, and in it, we can recognise the model of tailored content delivery to learner-controlled device that we see today.

Internet-enabled learning

The final phase of distance education and blended learning development was the advent of widespread use of the internet, since the 1990s, which has revolutionised both the learning delivery possibilities and the learning experience. The key advancement enabled by the internet and digital technologies is the possibility of an interactive learning experience, and the immense potential that this opens up. In fact one definition of blended learning focuses precisely on this potential: [blended learning]“…designates the range of possibilities presented by combining Internet and digital media with established classroom forms…..” (Friesen 2012).

The late 1990s also saw the first Learning Management Systems (LMSs) and Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). In 1999, Blackboard was launched and rapidly achieved remarkable success, with Moodle hot on its heels, launching in 2002. Since then, there has been a rapid growth of LMSs and VLE providers, though the former, such as Docebo and Cornerstone, tend to be geared to the workplace, while the latter are designed for formal education, as in the case of Blackboard and Moodle.

Methods of achieving interaction and engagement online have become increasingly sophisticated, with Learning Experience Platforms emerging for greater personalisation, online social learning and interaction between learners. At the vanguard are mobile learning solutions or learning journeys via a smartphone, in which a cohort of learners (for example, a group of sales professionals or financial advisors in an organisation) is fed tailored and engaging content at an appropriate pace with integrated quizzes, games and contests, to optimise the impact of learning in the flow of work.

Another significant advantage is that interactive learning via the internet can be synchronous or asynchronous, so the learner can have direct engagement not only with the teacher/facilitator but also with the other students, if the learning process is optimised, in effect simulating the classroom setting, but adding opportunities for feedback, integration of multimedia materials and linking to a wide range of resources. Blended and hybrid learning models would not be possible without the remarkable power and flexibility digital technology affords.

In the next blog post on blended learning, we’ll look at the differences between blended and hybrid learning, explore models of blended learning and consider how these relate to evolving theories of learning.

Mental health is finally beginning to gain the recognition it merits, including within the work context, after having been a taboo issue in many cultures all over the world for centuries. These days, there is a much deeper understanding of both the impact of mental illness, and the causes – though many would argue we still have a long way to go on the latter.

There is nothing like financial impact to make people take notice, and according to the UK organisation, Mental Health at Work, poor mental health at work costs £1652 a year per employee. That adds up to an eye-watering sum in many organisations and a hugely disruptive impact in any organisation. And here’s another startling statistic from the same source about the impact of mental health at work: 57% of the working days lost to illness/sickness are mental health related.

A quick word about terminology. While the shorthand phrase generally used is mental health, the concept can be more fully described as “mental and emotional health”. Mental and emotional responses are usually closely intertwined, though not always (e.g., a “gut reaction”). Mental health is seen as the counterpart to physical health, though again these two domains are intertwined. Our developing knowledge of neurology, hormonal functions, sensorial capacities, social anthropology and other areas is helping us to understand and rethink many previously held Cartesian or dualist assumptions (though modern rationalism is certainly no nearer understanding the nature of the soul!). Mental illness can also have physical manifestations and consequences, not only for the sufferer but also for those with which they come into contact.

To understand mental health in the round, we can be guided by the WHO’s statement on mental health:  “Mental health is an integral part of health; indeed, there is no health without mental health.” A key point to bear to mind is that just because someone does not have any mental disorders or illness, it does not necessarily mean they are mentally healthy. Mental well-being is a positive and productive state of being that enables us to actively contribute to society, develop resilience and achieve self-realisation.

The WHO’s definition of mental health, which is widely accepted internationally, including by the OECD and other international and national organisations states that:
“Mental health is a state of well-being in which an individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and is able to make a contribution to his or her community”. So productive work and making a contribution are key ingredients of good mental health; indeed, the workplace has a central role to play in facilitating and supporting mental health in people.

Mental illness: a shared issue

The organisation Mental Health at Work states that “9 out 10 adults have been touched by a mental health issue in the last year”. The Covid-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on mental health, as we shall discuss later, yet this statement is not specific to the pandemic. Humans are social beings, so mental illness is often a psychosocial issue, i.e., both psychological and social, and can be triggered or exacerbated by social phenomena such as peer pressure, magnified through group dynamics and social media.

Mental illness, like some forms of abuse (physical, substance, sexual), can be self-perpetuating among families and social groups. This is due to influential circumstantial/environmental factors (for example work-related stress or behavioural norms experienced/suffered in family settings where a parent has a mental illness) and/or to genetic/physiological predisposition/age-related factors (e.g., bipolar, dementia). Often, it is due to a combination of both (psychosocial disorders e.g., substance related, schizophrenia, anxiety, ADHD, body image problems, eating disorders, phobias and some neurological conditions).

With socio-environmental or psychosocial disorders for example, those who live with or suffer the effects of someone else’s mental illness often suffer trauma themselves, which can in turn compromise their own mental health. Specifically, the behaviours of someone who has suffered serious abuse (whether physical, mental, sexual or substance-related) can damage those who live with them, especially if those behaviours are a familiar pattern associated with release or control. In this way mental illness can be self-perpetuating.

According to the UK Mental Health Foundation, the prevalence of mental illnesses tends to be higher among certain socially and economically disadvantaged or vulnerable minorities specifically: refugees and asylum seekers; black, Asian and minority ethnic groups; people with physical health conditions;, victims of domestic violence; substance misusers; carers; LGBTIQ+; homeless people. As we can see, this non-exhaustive list covers an extremely wide range of people and backgrounds.

HR personnel, managers and leaders in the workplace (whether that is in an office, factory, remote or hybrid etc) need to be aware of such basic information on mental health and need to understand how widespread mental health issues are. It stands to reason that a management attitude and organisational culture that prioritises and actively supports diversity and inclusion, backed up by enabling policies and good practices, is a fundamental factor in supporting mental health and wellbeing at work.

Mental Health and Current Work Context

The pandemic

10 October was World Mental Health Day in 2022: mental health is now a highly topical issue. I would suggest for three broad reasons for this. In part it is due to advances in our understanding of the field and in large part due to the effects of the change, uncertainty and volatility we are experiencing in the 21^st century. But what has really brought mental health issues to the fore is the Covid-19 pandemic, and its many and various effects on society, including a disproportionate impact on the vulnerable.

There are many studies in progress on the effects of the pandemic on mental health, but the World Health Organisation sums it up thus: “The COVID-19 pandemic has created a global crisis for mental health, fuelling short- and long-term stresses and undermining the mental health of millions. Estimates put the rise in both anxiety and depressive disorders at more than 25% during the first year of the pandemic. At the same time, mental health services have been severely disrupted and the treatment gap for mental health conditions has widened.” The problems caused by long covid – an estimated 17 million cases in Europe – is a major factor.

Disruption to support services is a widespread example of the collateral damage of the pandemic, and those with pre-existing physical or mental health conditions have suffered greatly in that respect, as well as experiencing higher level of anxiety and depression. While the restrictions on movement that many public health authorities imposed to curb the spread of the virus were contributing factors to depression and frustration, especially among the young people, equally the effects of the lifting of restrictions, specifically being amongst crowds and in crowded places, was major trigger for anxiety for two thirds of those surveyed in a recent UK study, whether they have pre-existing conditions or not.

Transformed work patterns

The biggest shift in work patterns, accelerated by the pandemic, has been in the massively increased proportion of remote and hybrid workers. Remote working can bring significant benefits and efficiencies for both the individual workers and the employer, but if not carefully managed by both in a clear, secure and mutually respectful collaboration, can harm workers’ mental health. Only now are organisations and employees working out how to manage, incentivise and balance this relatively new but radical transformation in work patterns; it is, after all, the responsibility of both parties.

Digital working brings immense flexibility and connectivity, as well as efficiencies, but equally “over-connection” can result in “technostress”, and when combined with isolation, can result in mental health issues. In recognition of this, the European Parliament recently passed a resolution agreeing measures for Protecting mental health in the digital workspace. The measures are as yet undefined but there is a widespread call from MEPs for an EU Mental Health Strategy. There was also recognition in the same forum that digital exclusion can have a negative effect on mental health too.

The CIPD noted in 2019 that “the main risks to employee health are now psychological”. This trend has continued as organisations in 2022 make “mental health the most common focus of their well-being activity”. Typically, they provide counselling and employee assistance services plus a range of other support, e.g., for carers, the bereaved, but there remain gaps in provision for menstrual health, menopause transition and men’s health, amongst other areas.

As we have already noted, the pandemic has been the major driver of developments in mental health at work. However, there are a number of other major trends which are also contributing to mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, in particular related to the precariousness of many jobs. Automation, digitalisation and advanced technology has reduced the number of boring, limited and repetitive tasks, especially in manufacturing environments, and has also brought the opportunity to work from anywhere, and more opportunities for individuals to work autonomously.

At the same time, however, the same inexorable forces have hastened the relatively new problem, especially in dynamic and volatile economies like the UK and the US, of precarious work, manifest not so much, as originally feared, in “machine replaced my job” but more in the uncertainty of the “gig economy”, of zero hours contracts, “available all hours” working and economic volatility. According to Public Health England, “people with mental health conditions are more likely to work in precarious roles with part-time or temporary hours, high turnover, and low pay”.

The Work Foundation at Lancaster University (UK) has identified “insecure work”, based on workers’ contractual status, financial situation and access to employment rights and entitlements. The Foundation’s analysis and Insecure Work Index found that 6.2 million workers in the UK in 2021 experienced “severely insecure work” (multiple forms of job insecurity simultaneously). Such a vast number with a severely insecure work status in a highly developed economy like the UK generates some alarm, not least because of the proven links to mental ill health and persistent poverty.

Precarious work is therefore a recognised labour market issue, which affects some groups, such as the low-paid, women and migrants more than others. An authoritative UK study in 2020 found that “between 2009-2018, approximately 8.5-9.5% of the UK workforce…..could be considered precarious workers”. The report highlighted that labour-market non-compliance (breaches of labour market rules and regulations) often goes hand in hand with precarious work and that this often has a direct impact on precarious workers’ “physical and psychological well-being”.

For the individual, the additional mental stress and strain of precarious work is to some extent due to the sense that their locus of control over their work and job has diminished, as the stability of jobs of the past has been replaced with volatility, unreliability and constant change. Indeed in some cases, e.g., in some very large multinationals, terms and conditions now minimise the employer’s responsibility to provide reliable work but retain the worker as a resource to be used as and when required.

In the technology-driven economy, smaller organisations also struggle to provide a locus of control, as they are increasingly dependent on the large multinationals for many of their enterprise functions, since core enterprise solutions tend to be provided by by a limited number of multinationals. Similarly, supply chain dependencies tie the fortunes of suppliers to those they supply inevitably, and the related market volatility.

Factors Supporting Mental Health at Work

Meeting fundamental human needs

This context of changing work patterns, the pandemic, volatility and ambiguity, precarious work, and overlapping spheres of work and life are combining to generate in many people a reappraisal of the traditional role of work in their lives. This is evident in the increasing employee turnover rates, especially in the US and Australia. As part of this reappraisal, we are also facing questions of identity.

In the twentieth century people were often defined by their (more stable) jobs or position in society (unjustly in many cases), and the question “What do you do?” meant ‘what is your work?’. Now, it is much harder for people to answer that question, not only for women trying to balance careers with motherhood, but the majority living in this context. If work no longer defines us, then the rest of our lives comes under more scrutiny and it becomes a question of identity, doubts over which can affect our mental health.

Manfred Max-Neef identified 9 fundamental human needs, and three of these are needs that we traditionally associate with work: identity, subsistence and protection. However, there two others which are equally fundamental, but often neglected in the work context: participation and creation. A sense of belonging is the foundation for rewarding participation for many and a key aspect of identity at work. James Routledge has written openly and eloquently about his own sense of belonging experiences at work.

As humans, the need to participate and contribute is intertwined with our self-esteem, our sense of where we fit in society and our sense of purpose. Lack of opportunities to participate (in work teams, projects, decisions, discussions events etc.) and to contribute meaningfully at work can result in a sense of futility, low self-worth and even resentment. Unemployment is the most damaging kind of non-participation and often has a direct negative impact on mental health. Since we live in a material world and we need to fund accommodation, bills, children etc., paid employment is a necessity for most of us.

“Good work”, as defined below, certainly contributes directly to mental health and secure employment. From a purely mental health point of view, however, employment can include voluntary work or work on art, music, technology or research projects, for example, as long as the work is constructive, engaging and contributing something of value. It is the contribution and the recognition of it that is rewarding; the opportunity to make an impact. This can be transformative for people suffering mental/emotional fragility.

Balance

Work and mental health can be mutually reinforcing. A great many people find purpose, stimulation and fulfilment through their work, and many of us will have experienced the situation in which good work helps us to soften, keep in proportion and overcome personal disappointments or sad events. The sad events may not disappear, but our mental and emotional balance is supported by stimulating, interesting work in which we have a real opportunity to contribute and make a difference.

Here, the keyword – and indeed the key word for this article in general – is balance. Overdependence on work when we have emotional or mental issues to address can easily tip us into high levels of stress and simply obscuring the issues usually exacerbates them. Striking the right balance often depends on two things: firstly, how well we know and look after ourselves, and secondly how supportive the employer or working environment is.

Good work

“Good Work”, as the CIPD has demonstrated, can have a positive impact on mental health, just as a poor work experience can exacerbate or generate mental health problems. “Good work”, promoted in a 2018 UK Report led by Matthew Taylor, and globally recognised as “decent work” by the International Labour Organisation, means fair work with opportunities for development. It is underpinned by 5 principles: Satisfaction; Fair pay; Participation and progression: Well-being, safety and security; Voice and autonomy (freedom to work in a way that suits the individual). Based on this, the Institute for the Future of Work has developed a Good Work Charter. This has many applications, not least as an effective framework for supporting mental health at work.

Health and Wellbeing Strategy

To quote the CIPD, “employers have a fundamental duty of care for the health, safety and welfare of their workers”. Research has shown that a holistic health and wellbeing strategy, rather than lots of disconnected initiatives, is the most effective way of enacting this duty of care. A regular risk assessment on work-related stress is also advisable as part of the Health and Well-being Strategy, and the availability of a Counselling or Employee Assistance Service is a fundamental component. Financial health is generally under-valued and poorly supported; while there may not be any immediate solutions, recognition and support from the organisation is important since “…the financially stressed are more likely to suffer conditions such as fatigue and heart attacks as well as alcohol and drug abuse.”

The CIPD also advises employers to analyse causes of unhealthy trends such as “presenteeism” or “leavism”, and factors that contribute to depression and anxiety such as long hours culture, remote worker isolation, worker surveillance, unrealistic workloads, insecure contracts and senior leaders role-modelling inappropriate behaviour. Diversity, Inclusion and Equality Policies and practices have proven to be preventative in minimising alienation and the sense of vulnerability that leads to mental and emotional stress.

We need to recognise that generally people want to perform well at work, especially as this has a direct impact on their development and reward prospects, and their sense of fulfilment. Though it varies across cultures, the competitive pressure to impress and show commitment at work is substantial and can drive people towards being ever-present, being available all hours regardless of their own well-being, as well as, unfortunately, towards destructive behaviours such as striving to make others look worse in comparison. The negative effect on mental health of these behaviours is well-documented so organisations need to be vigilant in preventing them through supporting workers’ welfare and in providing constructive opportunities for productive engagement, collaboration and development.

Open culture, space for listening and understanding behavioural signals

In open and inclusive cultures, people can talk about mental health issues without fear of reprisals, judgement, or marginalisation. Unfortunately, few cultures internationally can claim to be genuinely open in this respect, and the current rapid rate of change and uncertainty, combined with misinformation and disinformation, is making such openness doubly challenging.

To counter this, a good reason for raising awareness about mental health in organisations and the workforce is that it is an indicator and a barometer of potentially severe consequences. Mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, circumstance-induced mental illness (e.g., vulnerable minorities and disadvantaged groups) are the primary cause of self-harm and suicide.

In some cultures, such is the pressure to keep up appearances at work that colleagues may never know when someone has a serious mental health problem. There is unspoken social resistance to being open and talking about one’s feelings, especially in the professional context, and particularly if it involves admitting weaknesses or vulnerabilities. Over the last 70 years, work culture has prized efficiency, productivity and the bottom line, the organised pursuit of which leaves little space for considerations of ill health.

Indeed, in Japan, South Korea and the US, all countries where suicide rates are relatively high (between 14 and 25 per 100,000 people per year according to recent figures), cultural tendencies, societal and workplace expectations together with economic pressures often combine to dissuade people from talking about their vulnerabilities and negative feelings, so that they take action when it is too late, with fatal results. In the UK, suicide rates among men are rising (approximately 17 per 100,000 males for 2021).

But mental health problems can just as easily result in harm to others, not only harm to oneself. There are many cases in the US and elsewhere where disgruntled employees have vented their frustrations on colleagues with devasting consequences. Such cases cannot be dismissed as one-off mental health issues; rather, they reflect serious mental and emotional vulnerabilities created by more systemic problems (leaving aside the widely acknowledged issue of the availability of firearms). These include: not addressing issues of isolation, bullying or stigmatising before they get out of hand for fear of causing bad PR, social media amplification, poor employee management and inadequate line management recognition of behaviours that can signal such acts of violence.

Supportive Line Management

Good management is vital: clear objectives, good communication and regular, constructive feedback.
Sensitivity towards others is not a popular concept in the competitive corridors of many businesses, but it is an utterly essential quality for a good manager. Naturally it needs to be combined with clarity, firmness and pragmatism, but line managers must be vigilant towards nascent mental health issues before they become major problems and affect the individual’s performance, other staff and productivity; they must be willing to use flexibility when health and wellbeing issues are at stake – to combine empathy and professionalism.

In reality, according to a CIPD 2022 Health and Well-being at Work Report, “Line managers play a pivotal role but often lack the skills required”. The CIPD Survey found that “Less than two-fifths (38%) of HR respondents agree that managers are confident to have sensitive discussions and signpost people to expert sources of help when needed; even fewer (29%) believe they are confident and competent to spot the early warning signs of mental ill health. This isn’t surprising given that just over two-fifths (44%) of organisations are training managers to support staff with mental ill health.”

How Learning Can Help

The case for specific training in mental health for managers, as part of a holistic Health and Well-being Strategy, is undeniably a strong one. Apart from recognising some of the behavioural signs that warn of mental health issues, managers need to be well-informed about the symptoms, risks and support practices, both individually and at the organisational level. Such training, focussed on managers but involving staff too, would have the additional benefit of enhancing their people management knowledge and skills, honing their empathy and advancing their staff development abilities, as they would be better able to spot signs of problematic or constructive behaviours. Many organisations now recognise that managers need to be trained to provide Mental First Aid, so they provide courses in the key support and guidance accordingly.

But mental health management is not just about preventing and managing mental illness. It is also about actively supporting and developing mental well-being as a positive and productive force that enables us to actively contribute to our organisations and society, to develop resilience and achieve self-realisation.

Amid the maelstrom of change of the 21^st century, a supportive culture at work (wherever work is) is a vital basis for security, stability and protection. A worker who has some stability, a sense of security and protection is then in a position to contribute constructively to the organisation, to collaborate effectively and to help solve problems and create opportunities.

Indeed “life skills”, or 21^st century transversal competencies, are the foundation for a healthy, productive and rewarding experience at work. In particular, building staff resilience is an important objective for learning and development in supporting mental well-being. Resilience requires learning agility, the ability to learn from experience, and the agility to bend and not break when under pressure or amid change and uncertainty. L&D certainly has a major role to play in developing strategically supported mental well-being.

Finally, one other quality is essential at work for supporting mental health: kindness – both to oneself and to others. This does not mean indulging people (or oneself), but being sensitive, respectful and giving recognition towards others’ feelings.