Blended Learning is a buzzword in Education today. Number of Blended Learning Models can be seen in the literature but those models hardly combine the elements of teaching and learning. They are just focused on the deliverable.

1. Page 1 of 5
Closed-loop Control Model for Blended Learning (CCM)
Danushka, S.A.N.1
& Warahena, A.S.K.2
1
Department of Education & Training, University of Vocational Technology, Sri Lanka
2
Department of Manufacturing Technology, University of Vocational Technology, Sri
Lanka
1
univotecsand@gmail.com
1. Introduction
Blended Learning is defined as “Combination of Face-to-Face and Online Learning” (Singh
and Reed, 2001, Driscoll, 2002, Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). Blended Learning is well-
known to the academia in the modern world as it paves a platform where the educators are
benefited by the advantages of both the worlds; face-to-face and online learning approaches
(Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). Though there can be seen number of attempts for framing such
learning in different contexts, still there cannot be found out a model which could fix with the
requirements (Chew, 2009). Different models depict contextual experiences rather than
tracking blended learning in par with the educational aspects. Teaching-Learning Process
consists of three elements; (1) Deciding Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs), (2) Planning
Instruction (Teaching and Learning) and (3) Assessing the performance. As these three
elements are necessarily interrelated, the interrelatedness is constructively aligned
(Constructive Alignment, Briggs, 2003, 1999).
Teaching and learning are having their own controls. Most of them are intangible controls.
Teacher’s knowledge, information processing, psychological aspects of teaching and
learning, visualizing, learning software and technology, experiences and attitudes are some of
the examples. Apart from them, tangible controls are also visible in the process. Instructional
media (i.e. Computers and other technology) and other physical and human resources can be
considered as tangible controls. By combining the two types of controls, educators are
planning to bring out an effective learning experience. Blended learning is not something an
outré. It can also be placed within this framing. Frequently, the existing blended learning
models disregard this essential composition of elements. Assessment is missing. Only the
deliverables are highlighted in the models. How technology is integrated in blended learning
has been the core issue. Based on this vacuum in blended learning models, the following
model is proposed for effective implementation of blended learning. The initial schematic
configuration is taken from engineering science (Closed-loop Control system).

2. Page 2 of 5
2. A New Model: Closed-loop Control Model for Blended Learning (CCM)
Figure: 1 - Closed-loop control Model for Blended learning
The Schematic shown above is on newly proposed model for blended learning environments.
From the educational point view, teaching-learning is a process and it is not static. There is a
continuous flow in the process. Mostly the models found in the literature are not based on
such a point of view (i.e. Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison Vaughan, 2008),
Blended Learning Continuum (Jones, 2006), Blended Learning Model (Kaur and Ahmad,
2005)). These models propose varying combinations of technology and different teaching and
learning activities. No emphasis has been given on how the process is going through a
continual improvement, adjustment and refining. In any teaching-learning process (face-to-
face, online, Blended), the parameters should be properly and appropriately defined and
controlled aimed at effective learning. Combination of face-to-face and online learning
experiences can be decided by the institution (30 – 79% Allen, et al., 2007). The rest of the
controls, activity design and development, strategy selection, infrastructure installation and
assessment procedures should be pre-planned and established. Unless the process may
encounter losses and desired outcomes may be inconsistent with the real outcomes (See
Figure: 2 & Figure: 3). Significantly, the proposed model is providing assessment based
continuous feedback for the learner and the designer. Therefore, process and controllers can
be re-designed and re-established aimed at effective learning. Learner autonomy and
independent learning can be encouraged when the controls are properly set inside the blended
learning process.
Proposed model is based on constructivist theoretical background (Dewey, 1913, 1938,
Bruner, 1957, Vygotsky, 1978) and Constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003, 1999). Teaching
and Learning start with Intended Learning Outcomes derived from the course curricula. It

3. Page 3 of 5
ends with Learning Outcomes (LO) which are mostly inconsistent with the ILOs. For the
sake of continual improvement, such feedback should be considered and accommodated.
The plot area given in yellow is the delivery phase. In this phase technology integration,
cognitive, social and teaching presence (CoL), and assessment can be done. Significantly,
types of assessments (formative & summative or formal & Informal etc…) can be carried out
within this phase. Further developments and improvements can be made before the ending
and inconsistencies between ILOs and LOs could be minimized. The following figures
illustrate the role of controls in education.
Figure: 2 – Output variation and Exponential cumulative losses in Human & Technology
Dominated process in Blended Learning
Figure: 3 -Reduced “Output variation and Exponential cumulative losses” in Human
& Technology Dominated process in Blended Learning with introduction of
controls

4. Page 4 of 5
Conclusion
Teaching and learning process in education can be easily classified as an intangible unit
control whereas human control becomes a dynamic power in the execution of the process.
With the insertion of identified controllers and processes along with the feedback into student
learning, it is noted that desired learning outcomes can be maximized, and losses and
mismatches can be minimized and eradicated. Further, this approach is supporting to a better
mind mapping of enhanced grasping and continual improvements and developments of
instructional models or approaches employed and ultimately improving student learning.
Educational methodologies and the overall mechanism can be further improved with the
identification and recognition of desired controllers and processes and, in the same way the
weaker approaches can be easily arrested. For quality assurance and accreditation process of
new educational programmes, recognition of controllers and processes of the programmes
will be helpful and originality and peculiarity of instructional models are made clear for all
the stakeholders.
References
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in. The extent and promise of blended
education in the United States. Retrieved on 5th of August, 2007 from
http://www.blendedteaching.org/system/files/Blending_In.pdf
Chew, E., Jones, N., & Turner, D. (2008, August). Critical review of the blended learning
models based on Maslow’s and Vygotsky’s educational theory.
In International Conference on Hybrid Learning and Education (pp. 40-53).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Danushka, S.A.N. & Warahena, Aruna, S.K.(2018), Instructional Strategies of Blended
Courses for Self-paced Learning – An approach towards creativity and
innovation as educational outcomes, Academy for Global Business
Advancement’s 15th World Congress Held at the AACSB Accredited
National Institute of Development Administration, Thailand. p 315-316.
Dorf, R. C., & Bishop, R. H. (2011). Modern control systems. Pearson.
Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. E-learning, 1(4), 1-4.
Fleming, P. J., & Purshouse, R. C. (2002). Evolutionary algorithms in control systems
engineering: a survey. Control engineering practice, 10(11), 1223-1241.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), 95-105.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), 95-105.
Nagrath, I. J. (2006). Control systems engineering. New Age International.

5. Page 5 of 5
Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology-
Saddle Brook Then Englewood Cliffs NJ-, 43(6), 51-54.
http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php/Using_Biggs'_Model_of_Constructive_Alignment_in_Curric
ulum_Design/Introduction - Retrieved on 16.12.2018