Please cite this paper as:

Zitter, I. and A. Hoeve (2012), “Hybrid Learning

Environments: Merging Learning and Work Processes to
Facilitate Knowledge Integration and Transitions”, OECD
Education Working Papers, No. 81, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k97785xwdvf-en

OECD Education Working Papers

No. 81

Hybrid Learning
Environments
MERGING LEARNING AND WORK PROCESSES
TO FACILITATE KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION
AND TRANSITIONS

Ilya Zitter, Aimée Hoeve

 Unclassified EDU/WKP(2012)18
Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 26-Jun-2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________
English - Or. English
DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION
Unclassified
EDU/WKP(2012)18

HYBRID LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS:

MERGING LEARNING AND WORK PROCESSES TO FACILITATE
KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION AND TRANSITIONS

EDU Working Paper 81

This paper has been prepared by Ilya Zitter and Aimée Hoeve of the Centre for Expertise in Vocational
Education and Training (ecbo), Utrecht, in the Netherlands. It provides background analysis for the Innovative
Learning Environments (ILE) project. It discusses the concept of ‘learning environment’ and develops that of
‘hybrid learning environment;’ it offers a framework to analyse and design hybrid learning environments, and it
applies this to specific VET examples.

The authors can be contacted at the following email addresses:

Dr. Ilya Zitter: ilya.zitter@ecbo.nl

Ms. Aimee Hoeve: Aimee.hoeve@ecbo.nl

David Istance: David.Istance@oecd.org; +33 1 45 24 92 73

English - Or. English

JT03324250
Complete document available on OLIS in its original format
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of
international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
EDU/WKP(2012)18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RÉSUMÉ .......................................................................................................................................... 4
HYBRID LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: MERGING LEARNING AND WORK
PROCESSES TO FACILITATE KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION AND TRANSITIONS ............. 5
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
2. Hybrid learning environments ................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Learning environments ......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Learning environments from a design perspective............................................................... 7
2.3 Defining hybrid learning environments................................................................................ 8
3. Decomposing hybrid learning environments ........................................................................... 11
3.1 Decomposing into authentic tasks ...................................................................................... 11
3.2 Decomposing with four perspectives ................................................................................. 12
4. Three cases ............................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 The Technology Case ......................................................................................................... 15
4.2 The Hospitality Case .......................................................................................................... 16
4.3 The Sports Case .................................................................................................................. 17
4.4 The Four Quadrants Applied to the Cases .......................................................................... 20
5. Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 22
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 24
Recent OECD publications of relevance to this Working Paper ................................................. 27
The OECD Education Working Papers Series On line ................................................................ 27

2
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

OECD EDUCATION WORKING PAPERS SERIES

This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected studies drawing on the work of the
OECD Directorate for Education. Authorship is usually collective, but principal writers are named. The
papers are generally available only in their original language (English or French) with a short summary
available in the other.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any
territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city
or area.

The opinions expressed in these papers are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect those of the OECD or of the governments of its member countries.

Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all, or part of, this material should be sent to
rights@oecd.org.

Comment on the series is welcome, and should be sent to edu.contact@oecd.org.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright OECD 2012.

3
EDU/WKP(2012)18

ABSTRACT

This paper deals with the problematic nature of the transition between education and the workplace. A
smooth transition between education and the workplace requires learners to develop an integrated
knowledge base, but this is problematic as most educational programmes offer knowledge and experiences
in a fragmented manner, scattered over a variety of subjects, modules and (work) experiences. To
overcome this problem, we propose a design approach and shifting the educational focus of attention from
individual learners to learning environments. The broader notion of learning environments facilitates
transitions by establishing horizontal connections between schools and the workplace.

The main argument of this paper is that combining or connecting aspects of school-based settings only
is not sufficient to ensure learners will develop an integrated knowledge base. The concept and examples of
“hybrid learning environment” show how formal, school-based learning and workplace experiences can be
closely connected. The paper offers a framework of four coherent perspectives that can help to understand
the complex nature of such environments and to design hybrid learning environments: the “agency
perspective”, the “spatial perspective”, the “temporal perspective”, and the “instrumental perspective”. The
framework is applied to three cases taken from vocational education in the Netherlands to describe what
hybrid learning environments look like in contemporary educational practice.

RÉSUMÉ

Le présent document traite de la délicate transition entre les études et la vie active. Pour vivre
cette transition dans de bonnes conditions, les apprenants doivent disposer d’une base de
connaissances intégrées. Or dans la plupart des programmes éducatifs, l’acquisition des
connaissances et des expériences se fait selon une approche fragmentée en une multitude de
sujets, modules et expériences (professionnelles) déconnectés les uns des autres. Pour remédier à
ce problème, nous proposons une approche conceptuelle et le passage d’une méthode centrée sur
l’apprenant à une méthode centrée sur les environnements d’apprentissage. Se placer dans une
perspective, plus large, d’environnements d’apprentissage établit des parallélismes entre l’école et
le monde du travail, ce qui facilite la transition de l’un à l’autre.

Le principal argument défendu dans ce document est le suivant : se contenter d’associer ou de

connecter uniquement des cadres axés sur la scolarité ne suffira pas pour garantir que les
apprenants développeront une base de connaissances intégrées. Le concept «d’environnement
d’apprentissage hybride » et les exemples de son application sont la preuve qu’un lien entre
l’apprentissage formel dispensé dans les écoles et les expériences acquises dans le milieu
professionnel. Ce document décompose le concept en quatre perspectives cohérentes susceptibles
d’apporter un éclairage sur la nature complexe de ces environnements et de faciliter la conception
des environnements d’apprentissage hybrides : la « perspective des acteurs », la « perspective
spatiale », la « perspective temporelle » et la « perspective des instruments ». Cette décomposition
est appliquée à trois cas empruntés à l’enseignement professionnel au Pays-Bas pour montrer
comment se concrétisent les environnements d’apprentissage hybrides dans la pratique
pédagogique d’aujourd’hui.

4
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

HYBRID LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS:

MERGING LEARNING AND WORK PROCESSES TO FACILITATE KNOWLEDGE
INTEGRATION AND TRANSITIONS

Ilya Zitter and Aimée Hoeve

(Centre for Expertise in Vocational Education and Training (ECBO), Utrecht, the Netherlands)

1. Introduction

The emergence of hybrid learning environments is driven by changes in educational practice.

Established educational practices are changing: established roles, resources and locations are being altered,
extended and replaced. Cognitive apprenticeship (Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989), situated learning and
legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991) are approaches that, in different ways, are
attempting to break the encapsulation of school learning (Engeström, 1991 in Zitter, De Bruijn, Simons and
Ten Cate, 2011). Why are educational practices changing? We as a society of politicians, citizens, parents,
teachers and company representatives strive for different learning outcomes to meet the demands from the
knowledge-based economy as part of changing demands in society in general. Educational institutions seek
to facilitate the process of learners to become competent, lifelong learning professionals able to cope with
societal developments. To do so, established educational practices are fundamentally changing their
relationship with their environments (Simons, Van der Linden and Duffy, 2000; Tynjälä, Välimaa and
Sarja, 2003).

A core problem underlying the above changes is the complex and problematic nature of the transition
learners are required to make from education to the workplace (Tynjälä et al., 2003). Studies show a gap
between what is learned and what is required of competent professionals in an ever more complex world
(Baartman and De Bruijn, 2011). Learners are expected to integrate different types of knowledge, for
example, formal knowledge, work process knowledge and practical knowledge. Developing an integrated
knowledge base is a lifelong learning process across different situations, such as school, hobbies and part-
time jobs, in both formal and informal settings (Schaap et al., 2011). At the same time, this integrated
knowledge base has to be applicable and up-to-date (Simons et al., 2000).

To facilitate the transition from education to the workplace and equip learners to deal with the
demands of the current workplace as part of wider society, our focus is on the changing relationship
between educational institutions and professional practice: the emerging forms of collaboration between
schools and work and on novel modes of integrating learning and working processes to ease the transition
from school to society and the workplace in particular so as to benefit from the strengths of each.

2. Hybrid learning environments

In this section, the concept of “hybrid learning environment” is introduced and defined, and the design
perspective on learning environments is discussed.

2.1 Learning environments

The archetypical context of learning is the classroom. However, due to changing educational
practices, the stricter concept of the classroom is supplemented by the broader concept of a learning
environment. There is a general consensus in the learning sciences that the context of learning matters and
that learning is somehow situated in a setting (Engeström, 2009). Situated theories of learning in particular
emphasise the social, collective and contextual nature of learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991). The notion of

5
EDU/WKP(2012)18

a “learning environment” as a broader setting than a classroom, as the context in which learning is situated,
has become widespread.

As one of the cornerstones of the concept of learning environments we can introduce an equivalent
concept of “curriculum” which can be defined in its most basic form as a “plan for learning” (Van den
Akker, 1999). Goodyear (2001) presents a more extensive definition and states that “a learning
environment consists of the physical and digital setting in which learners carry out their activities,
including all the tools, documents and other artefacts to be found in that setting. Besides the physical and
digital setting, it includes the socio-cultural setting for such activities.”

A variety of interpretations of the concept of learning environment can be found in the literature. In
some of these, the focus is on the role of information and communication technology (ICT), as in the
“innovative learning environment” (Kirschner, 2005), which should have the necessary technological,
social and educational affordances to provide opportunities to learn. Similar is the “collaborative learning
environment” which responds to societal trends by increasing the focus on open-ended problem-solving
tasks via heterogeneous, distributed teams using Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)
technology (Beers, Boshuizen, Kirschner and Gijselaers, 2005). Some concepts are more encompassing,
like “powerful learning environment” (Könings, Brand-Gruwel and Van Merriënboer, 2005) that take the
intended learning processes and learning goals into account.

In this paper, the focus is on learning environments that cross the traditional school boundaries into
working life. Establishing horizontal connections outside of school is considered by many as important
(e.g. Billett, 2011). Dumont and Istance (2010) distinguished seven core “principles” for designing learning
environments with practitioners and decision-makers in mind. One of these principles is to “promote
horizontal connectedness across activities and subjects, in- and out-of-school”. Research shows that
learners are engaged in more complex forms of learning with a conscious drive toward a better integration
of learning and working (Järvelä and Volet, 2004). Others also stress the importance of engaging students
in solving real-world problems or ill-defined professional tasks that are complex, realistic and challenging
to invoke active learning processes (Könings et al., 2005; Baartman and De Bruijn, 2011).

Relevant research is being carried out in the Netherlands, where more traditional out-of-context
practical and theoretical lessons are increasingly replaced by internships and workplace simulations
(Jossberger, Brand-Gruwel, Boshuizen and Van de Wiel, 2010). In Finland there is research on joint
developmental projects in collaboration with working life, that provide interesting starting points for
reducing the gap between school and work (Tuomi-Gröhn, 2007). Similar work is being carried out in
Australia where “providing students with experiences in practice settings to assist developing their
knowledge required for effective professional practice is growing and widening trend across Australian
higher education” (Billet, 2011). Billet (2011) argues that it is increasingly expected from education to
provide students with access to and engagement in authentic instances of practice, referring in this case to
“work integrated learning” for providing students with experiences in practice settings to assist them to
move more effectively into their selected educational practice.

The above research moves from formal, school-based learning processes in the direction of learning in
the workplace. The movement the other way is also becoming more and more widespread. The relevance
of workplace learning is widely recognized in the United Kingdom, for instance, and Unwin (2009) points
out that learning in the workplace is embedded within work activity and that “workplaces exist, of course,
to produce goods and services”. In contrast, formal, school-based learning processes have formal
qualification as their main goal. Fuller and Unwin (2004) advise to move forward to expansive workplaces
in which learning is regarded as part of work and supported by appropriate supervisory and managerial
processes.

6
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

In this paper, we take it one step further. Instead of merely combining, connecting or joining aspects
of learning in school and experiences in work settings or the other way around by expanding workplaces
with learning features, we are interested in how they might be integrated and merged.

Figure 1: Integrate and merge: interweave learning and working processes

Figure 1 shows the contrast between school based and work based learning. School-based learning is
on the left side. This type of learning can be characterised as intentional, organized in a formal curriculum,
with predictable outcomes and with a focus on explicit knowledge and generalized skills. On this side of
the dimension, learning tasks are constructed to facilitate knowledge acquisition and knowledge is
considered as a commodity that can be acquired, transferred and shared with others (Sfard, 1998).
Pedagogical practices aim at de-contextualised knowledge, symbol manipulation, mental activities with a
focus on individual learners. There is a separation between theory and practice and between knowledge and
skills.

Work-based learning is positioned on the right hand side. This type of learning can be characterised as
unintentional and informal, and the outcomes are unpredictable. The focus is on tacit knowledge,
contextualized action, e.g. tool use and collaborative learning. On this side of the dimension, learning takes
place in realistic settings and learning is characterised as becoming a member of a professional community
(Sfard, 1998). Pedagogical practices treat competences holistically, there is little separation between
knowledge and skills, and instead the aim is to develop seamless know-how.

Over the last decade, school-based learning has become more informal with forms introduced such as
authentic assignments, project-based learning, and in-school mini-enterprises. At the same time, informal
learning was formalised by means of recognition of prior learning and the use of portfolios (Tynjälä, 2008).
This has led to a process of cross-fertilisation leading to new forms of learning that integrate aspects of
both formal and informal learning. Our focus is on the latter forms of learning that aim to interweave
learning and working processes to benefit from the strengths of both formal, school-based learning and
real-life experience.

2.2 Learning environments from a design perspective

We take an explicit design perspective. In general, one can distinguish between the analytical or
explanatory sciences and the design sciences (Collins, Joseph and Bielaczyc, 2004; Van Aken, 2005). The
analytical or explanatory sciences are trying to understand how phenomena in the world can be explained
and focus on pure knowledge problems. The design sciences have as their main interest the development of
valid knowledge to support the design of solutions to field problems by competent professionals dealing
with educational reform (Van Aken, 2004). In the context of this paper, this means educational
professionals.

As a possible solution to bridge the gap between educational research and practice, a new
methodological approach was introduced focusing on so-called “design experiments” (Brown, 1992) and
“design science” (Collins, 1992), and has since received growing attention (Sandoval and Bell, 2004).

7
EDU/WKP(2012)18

Other related terms include “design experimentation”, “design-oriented research” and “design-based
research” (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).

One of the main motives for initiating design research in educational sciences stems from the desire to
increase the relevance of research for educational policy and practice (Gravemeijer and van Eerde, 2009).
Design research meets the aim of addressing theoretical questions about learning in context, that is, to
study learning phenomena in the real world and go beyond narrow measures of learning (Collins et al.,
2004 in Akkerman et al. 2011). Educational design focuses on finding solutions to a problem. Its outcomes
can vary from optimal or alternative solutions to a set of design principles or guidelines with which an
optimal solution can be reached (Van den Akker 1999). As object of design, we choose learning
environments and more specifically: those aspects of learning environments that can intentionally be
planned and designed by educational professionals who have the role, for example, of educational designer,
curriculum developer or innovator.

Van den Akker (1999) distinguishes three forms of curriculum representations: (1) intended: the
underlying vision of a curriculum and the intentions as specified, (2) implemented: the interpretations by its
participants and the actual curriculum in-action, and (3) attained: the learning experiences and outcomes of
a curriculum. These three forms can be applied to the concept of hybrid learning environments. The plans
and designs of a hybrid learning environment (intended) are interpreted by its participants and
implemented to become a hybrid learning environment-in-action in the form of the socio-cultural setting in
which participants carry out their activities (implemented) and which leads to the desired learning
experiences and learning outcomes, namely competent, lifelong learning professionals able to cope with
societal developments (attained).

A design perspective provides added value since the concept of a learning environment is broader than
the archetypical classroom. In the classroom, the agents and roles are clear: the teacher enacts the role of
expert and the students enact the role of learners to acquire knowledge. The space is mainly physical and
has a familiar set-up. The instruments are usually the whiteboard and various paper materials, such as,
books, articles and written assignments. The temporal perspective consists of, for instance, a schedule of
hourly lectures. When this setting is broadened into a learning environment and crosses the boundary into
the workplace, it becomes much more complex. Engeström (2007) notes that design research in the
educational sciences has shifted the focus of attention from isolated individuals to entire learning
environments or learning ecologies, (Akkerman, Bronkhorst and Zitter, 2011). It becomes necessary to
design the learning environment in advance and align all the different elements and perspectives into a
coherent and adaptive whole.

We should note Engeström’s view (2009) that is critical of the concept of “learning environment” as
an over-simplification. He states that the “plethora of attributes” (like innovative, collaborative, powerful,
real-life) are used to “sell a wishful image of future learning in which all good qualities of human
interaction come true” and fosters the naïve expectation that designing such a learning environment will
automatically lead to the intended learning outcomes. Though Engeström makes these remarks about
computer-supported learning environments, they have a broader relevance. We are mindful of this criticism
and apply the concept of “learning environment” carefully, as we believe it does have added value by
broadening the notion of archetypical classroom situations when discussing educational practices.

2.3 Defining hybrid learning environments

The above overview included research into various experiments and developments with non-
traditional learning environments. We need suitable concepts to understand and discuss these developments
in both educational research and practice. These include the concept of “hybrid learning environment”.
This concept was developed in close participation with educational practice of higher education and higher

8
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

vocational education. As a follow-up, it is now applied in the context of senior secondary vocational
education in the Netherlands. In parallel, design-based research was carried out, to lay the theoretical,
scientific foundations for designing hybrid learning environments (Zitter, 2010; Zitter, Kinkhorst, Simons
and Ten Cate, 2009; Zitter, De Bruijn, Simons and Ten Cate, 2011; Zitter et al., 2012; Akkerman et al.,
2011)

We can start with the “learning environment” part of hybrid learning environments. As Goodyear
(2001) defined it: “a learning environment consists of the physical and digital setting in which learners
carry out their work, including all the tools, documents and other artefacts to be found in that setting.
Besides the physical and digital setting, it includes the socio-cultural setting for such activities”. We can
also agree with Van den Akker (1999) and distinguish the physical and digital setting with its tools,
documents and artefacts, which can be intentionally planned and designed in a specific educational
context, and the socio-cultural setting in which learners carry out their activities which emerges from this
intentionally planned and designed environment.

What of the “hybrid” part of the concept? To understand hybridity, one needs to acknowledge
different modes of learning. In general a broad distinction between two modes of learning can be made:
learning situated in an educational environment that is based on formal, intentionally planned educational
activities and learning situated in a workplace environment that is mostly informal in nature (Tynjäla et al.,
2003). The educational environment tends to focus more on individuals, while in a workplace environment
the focus is more on activities, often carried out in a team or within an organisational structure. Learning in
schools usually has an emphasis on mental activities, while in a workplace the additional use of different
tools and instruments is quite customary.

We can formalise this by using the following two dimensions (see Figure 2): (1) acquisition-
participation and constructed-realistic. These two dimensions give four quadrants in defining hybrid
learning environments, (Zitter, 2010; Zitter et al, 2011; Zitter et al, 2012):

1. constructed-acquisition

2. constructed-participation

3. realistic-acquisition

4. realistic-participation.

9
EDU/WKP(2012)18

Figure 2: Two dimensions and four quadrants

The first dimension has on one side the knowledge acquisition metaphor, in which knowledge is
considered as a commodity that can be acquired, transferred and shared with others. On the other side is
the participation metaphor, characterising learning as becoming a member of a professional community
(Sfard, 1998). The acquisition side of this dimension corresponds with the theories from cognitive
traditions, while the participation side corresponds with social/cultural traditions.

The second dimension is constructed-realistic. This dimension characterises how realistic learning
tasks are. Constructed settings are characterised as low-fidelity: the rich reality of society, and specifically
of professional practice, is reconstructed. Moving towards the realistic-side of this dimension, constructed
settings can become of higher fidelity, for example, by involving simulation technology, internal
employees or outside actors to enact roles like client or patient. Moving to the right-hand side of the
dimension are realistic settings that closely mirror the real professional context; they may actually be
completely realistic. In such settings, learners are immersed in real problems from actual professional
practice. At the right-hand, learners may be situated in an actual, real-world workplace setting.

These two dimensions form four quadrants, each with specific types of situations. For example classic
lectures to present explicit theoretical knowledge fit in the constructed-acquisition quadrant. Discussing or
presenting work experiences to enable tacit knowledge to be made explicit fit in the realistic-acquisition
quadrant. Group assignments or simulations go in the constructed-participation quadrant. In the realistic-
participation quadrant are the most realistic situations, such as working for actual, external clients from
within a school-based setting, as well as working side-by-side with professionals in real-life workplaces.

The two-dimensional model with four quadrants (Figure 2) can be mapped onto the one-dimensional
model (Figure 1) as followed. In general, formal learning in school-based settings is constructed
(Quadrants1 and 2). They can focus more on acquisition (e.g. classic lectures) or on participation (e.g.
group assignments). Workplace learning takes place in realistic settings (Quadrants 3 and 4): besides
learning by doing (Quadrant 4), implicit knowledge can be made explicit by, for example, thinking aloud,
explanations from senior professionals or reflective meetings (Quadrant 3). However, in the workplace,
classic theoretical, instruction sessions and skills trainings are also customary (Quadrant 1) or more applied
workshops and simulations can take place (Quadrant 2). In sum, the two-dimensional model with four
quadrants is a richer model and offers additional perspectives to the classic theory-practice dichotomy.

10
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

The above framework can be used to operationalise the hybrid nature of learning environments. For a
learning environment to be considered hybrid, each of the four quadrants should be represented. Moreover,
the four quadrants need to be aligned with each other. The key here is to interpret the dimensions
acquisition-participation and acquisition-constructed as variables instead of strict opposites. Hybrid
learning environments should intentionally be planned and designed in such a way that each side of the
dimension can gradually and seamlessly convert into the other side. Hybrid learning environments should
be adaptive in nature. Both sides of the dimensions should be used to adapt and adjust the environment to
suit the developmental process of learners.

3. Decomposing hybrid learning environments

Planning and designing hybrid learning environments is not an easy endeavour. Previous research
suggests that it is helpful to further unravel the concept of hybrid learning environment. The first step is to
analyse the professional tasks which constitute the content of the learning environment, which can be
decomposed into smaller units. For these smaller units, we adopted the authentic or related whole task
concept. We should distinguish a “task” from an “activity”. Wisner (1995, as cited in Goodyear, 2005; in
Zitter, 2010) says: “tasks are what managers set - they are the prescribed work. Activity is what people
actually do. Educators set tasks. Learners interpret the specifications of the task”.

3.1 Decomposing into authentic tasks

The “authentic task” is one of the basic elements of the powerful learning environments model.

“Authentic tasks [are] preferably performed in realistic contexts. Tasks not only involve the application
of instrumental skills but also more general competencies such as arranging, planning, and
organization. Authentic tasks are assignments taken from vocational practice. These assignments might
need to be re-designed to be accessible to learners (e.g., divided into component parts or sub tasks) but
the complexity of reality should remain an essential feature of the tasks” (De Bruijn and Leeman, 2011:
697).

These authentic tasks are in line with the “whole task” concept at the backbone of the “Four
Component Instructional Design” (4C/ID) method (Van Merriënboer, De Clark and De Croock, 2002) in
which the learning tasks are “concrete, authentic, whole task experiences”. Kirschner, Martens, and
Strijbos (2004 in Zitter et al., 2009) characterise tasks on a dimension with, on the one end, more
traditional school tasks which are well-structured, well-defined and short, and, on the other end of this
dimension, authentic tasks: “real life problems that are mostly ill-structured and/or wicked and generally
need team effort to solve them”.

The whole-task approach analyses a learning domain as a coherent, interconnected whole and then
teaches it from more simple, yet meaningful wholes that are representative for the whole domain to
increasingly more complex wholes. Van Merriënboer, Kirschner and Kester (2003) argue that the whole-
task approach solves three basic problems in education, namely: (1) fragmentation, indicating that students
are often not able to combine the many pieces they have learned into coherent wholes; (2)
compartmentalization, indicating that students have difficulties integrating acquired knowledge, skills, and
attitudes; and (3) low transfer of learning, indicating that learners are often not able to apply what they
have learned to new problems and new situations.

The authentic tasks of a learning environment come from a professional domain, such as process
technology (technology case), the hospitality industry (hospitality case) or sports and leisure (sports case).
A learning environment can be unravelled into separate authentic tasks for analytical purposes but must
remain part of an intact whole. Authentic tasks have to be sequenced and connected to weave together the

11
EDU/WKP(2012)18

realistic work processes and learning processes that are the fabric of a hybrid learning environment. When
authentic tasks are sequenced, the following should be taken into account:

• sequencing is needed to develop from peripheral to full participation;

• tasks are sequenced from low accountability (little risk involved when making errors) to tasks
with high accountability (full responsibility).

Sequencing often has pedagogic qualities and purposes, analogous to designing curricula in
educational settings (Billett, 2006).

Figure 3: Authentic tasks and intertwined learning process form the backbone
(Aalsma, 2001)

The working process consisting of interlaced authentic tasks and intertwined learning processes form
the backbone of hybrid learning environments (Aalsma, 2011), see Figure 3. The learning process moves
in and out of the work process. At times, learning takes place simultaneously with carrying out an authentic
task (e.g. learning by doing or by modelling more senior colleagues in Quadrant 4). At other times,
learning takes place near working (e.g. stopping the work for a short theoretical intermezzo in Quadrant 1,
practicing a specific skill in an authentic assignment or simulation in Quadrant 2 or stopping the work to
engage in collaborative problem-solving in Quadrant 3). Learning can also be further away from the
working process (e.g. frontal, formal training in Quadrant 1 or a simulation assignment in Quadrant 2).

3.2 Decomposing with four perspectives

After decomposing the content of a learning environment using the “authentic task” concept, a
different kind of decomposition can take place as a next step in the design process by distinguishing four
perspectives (Zitter, 2010; Zitter et al., 2011; Zitter et al, 2012):

• Agency perspective, to study the roles enacted by the agents or participants.

• Spatial perspective, to study the physical and digital spaces in which the tasks take place.

12
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

• Temporal perspective, the timeframe as relevant to the tasks.

• Instrumental perspective, the boundary objects that are instrumental to deliver the intermediary
and final results of the tasks.

The above four perspectives are adopted from different theories and models. Foremost, we aim to
keep the perspectives as generic as possible, instead of imposing a specific school of thought. Also, the
perspectives are meant to establish common ground so that generic and portable concepts are preferable to
highly specific ones. Finally, they should be simple and at the same time expressive, to appeal to a wide
target audience (Zitter et al., 2009).

The selection of the four perspectives grew out of Goodyear’s (2001) definition of a learning
environment. Two of the perspectives, namely, the spatial (“physical and digital settings in which learners
carry out their activities”) and the instrumental (“all the tools, documents and other artefacts to be found in
that setting”) are derived from that definition.

We also adopted “activity theory”. We kept the elements from activity theory that are about design,
namely, objects or goals, instruments and outcomes, and merged them into the instrumental perspective
focused on boundary objects (Zitter et al., 2009). The concept of “boundary objects” represents an
analytical perspective, focusing on objects that facilitate coordination, alignment and integration of the
various activities of individuals of the involved communities (Schmidt, 2000 and Schmidt and Wagner,
2004 in Zitter et al., 2009). The agency perspective was adopted from so-called “collaboration scripts”
(Kobbe et al., 2007; Kollar, Fischer, and Hesse, 2006 in Zitter et al., 2009), from which the concepts of
participants, roles and groups were taken and merged into the instrumental perspective. The temporal
perspective was also adopted from collaboration scripts, though in that model, timing is part of what they
call “method” - which role is carried out, which activities, at what moment in the process. We elaborated
“at what moment in the process” with all other aspects of time, such as available time, time-outs, pausing,
deadlines, and so on.

The above four perspectives have been used during applied research in the domain of higher
education and vocational education and training (VET). They meet the criteria as mentioned earlier: they
can be used with existing models and do not impose a specific school of thought. They also help to
establish common ground and can appeal to a wide target audience (teachers, educational developers and
coordinators).

The Agency Perspective. The agency perspective aims to provide a clear picture of who is active in a
hybrid learning environment. Agents enact the significant roles: they may be students from different
disciplines, educational staff (teachers, trainers, coaches), external practitioners from professional practice
and external clients, patients or representatives of target audiences. Participants enact specific roles,
whether educational roles, such as learner, domain expert, tutor, coach, observer and peer-assessor, or work
roles such as junior or senior employees, or managers. In hybrid learning environments, all relevant
professional roles are designed. The professional roles should be multi-professional and diversified in
terms of seniority (multi-level). Different individual actors can enact the same role, which leads to different
enactments. Roles can be enacted by teams of actors, which leads to different team enactments. Actors are
either expected to enact single roles sequentially or multiple roles within the same time-frame. Roles can
be more encompassing, like “manager” or more narrow and specific like “observer during this sales
meeting”.

The Spatial Perspective. The spatial perspective makes explicit where the learning takes place; it
studies the physical and digital spaces of a hybrid learning environment. The challenge from a hybrid
learning environment perspective is to mirror an authentic workspace and at the same time provide suitable

13
EDU/WKP(2012)18

spaces from the educational point of view. Spaces need to be designed for different purposes, for both
acquisition and participation. The spaces should not be either/or but should afford different functions to
gradually merge and blend. Therefore, there need to be spaces suitable for the work processes in question.
These working spaces should also accommodate acquisition activities, for example, observations, quick
discussions, thinking aloud, reflective dialogues, collaborative problem solving, direct instruction or
theoretical interludes. Near the work spaces should be other multifunctional areas, for example, for
lectures, group work, presentations, meetings or individual study.

The digital spaces should also accommodate both working and learning processes. They should be
suitable for knowledge acquisition for easy reference afterwards or self-study, for example, by offering
structured learning resources, reference material and professional tools. On the other hand, digital spaces
should be designed for participation by facilitating collaborative processes within the environment and
facilitate interaction with outside professionals and outside communities of practice (Zitter et al., 2012).

The Instrumental Perspective. The instrumental perspective aims to clarify which tools are used to
facilitate the learning of the participants in a hybrid learning environment. This perspective encompasses
the artefacts which are instrumental to deliver the intermediary and final results of the tasks, such as
checklists, handbooks, formats, protocols, professional tools, computer software. These artefacts refer to
the broad range of instruments, tools, objects and devices that support learning and work processes.
Artefacts support the routines of a community of practice (Pentland and Feldman, 2004).

The challenge in hybrid learning environments is to identify the so-called “boundary objects”.
Boundary objects facilitate the interaction between actors with different viewpoints - for example, actors
from different professions - and help to connect heterogeneous information (Star and Griesemer, 1989 in
Zitter et al., 2012). A suitable boundary object can be a professional object that requires interaction with
participants enacting different roles, while these interactions take place in both physical and digital spaces.
Such objects require learners to articulate in different forms and for different audiences. By selecting
objects which are used in professional practice, explicit connections can be made with working life. These
objects help learners to cross the boundary from school into their future professional community.

The Temporal Perspective. The temporal perspective aims to answer the question: when does the
learning take place? This perspective may look into all aspects of time such as: the available time,
sequencing, timing, accelerating and decelerating, all relevant to the tasks in question.

In professional practice, tasks and work processes have a certain duration, a specific available time,
and planned deadlines; in educational settings, these time elements can be manipulated and constructed.
For example, time can be accelerated or slowed down. Acceleration can be applied to compress a lengthy
work process to fit a limited time slot, which enables the learner to experience a whole work process
instead of isolated parts of it. When time is slowed down, pivotal elements of the work process, such as
snap-decisions, intricate procedures or machinery, can be analysed more slowly and in detail. Other time
aspects relevant to hybrid learning environments are: pausing, rewinding, time-outs, time-pressure, and
deadlines.

The temporal aspects also concern the sequence of learning and working tasks. In hybrid learning
environments, the sequencing can be planned for and designed up to a certain point. The sequence of
working and learning processes also emerges from the daily developments and may differ from learner to
learner. Monitoring the overall development and complete coverage of all relevant learning and working
tasks for individual learners, regardless of the followed sequences, is crucial in the design of hybrid
learning environments.

14
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

4. Three cases

During the last decade, several forms of hybrid learning environments have been developed in Dutch
vocational education and training (VET). In vocational education, the traditional out-of-context practical
and theoretical lessons are increasingly replaced by internships and workplace simulations (Jossberger,
Brand-Gruwel, Boshuizen and Van de Wiel, 2010). Examples of hybrid forms are teams of learners
working on real-world problems from external customers, in-school companies and teams of learners that
function as “shadow-crew” next to a regular working crew. The three cases below are real, and provide
(part of) an educational programme at the level of senior secondary vocational education in three different
domains, i.e. process technology, the hospitality industry, and the sports and leisure industry.

Even though these cases are drawn from vocational education, they provide insights that support the
design of similar solutions in other educational contexts as the concepts and perspectives discussed in this
paper are certainly not unique to vocational education. As Billett (2011) states: “It is likely that much of the
lower levels of conceptual knowledge, facts and concepts, and deeper forms of understanding,
characterised by rich associations and links, will be learnt through engagement in activities outside of
intentional learning experiences within education institutions. The concepts and perspectives presented
help to realize learning environment in which formal education activities can be interwoven with
experiences in any kind of practice setting such as work, but also civic engagement.” (p.10)

4.1 The Technology Case

The technology case is situated at the grounds of an educational institute providing senior secondary
vocational education (14,000 students). The technology case offers five study programs: three in process
technology and two in marketing and sales. Currently, there are about 50 students (growing to 70-90). This
learning environment also offers work placements to students from other study programs, to students from
other similar educational institutes and to external students from higher education. This learning
environment is set up as an operational factory with a production line to purify and bottle water. In
addition, there is a marketing and sales department to market and sell the bottled water with custom-
designed labels.

Agency perspective: In this case, the professional roles are multi-professional and include process
operator (three levels), production coordinator, marketing and sales and plant manager. It is also possible to
diversify the roles in terms of seniority. In this case, one can distinguish starting operators (first-year
students) and experienced operators (second-year students). There is also a number of educational roles,
such as assessor, peer-assessor, various domain experts, facilitator and learner. Two main guidance roles
are explicitly designed, namely the so-called “learning master” (in charge of the learning process) and the
“work master” (in charge of the working process). The first is responsible for the facilitation of the learning
processes of the students by organising reflection and theoretical workshops. The second guides the
students in the working process by giving feedback on their practical skills, providing skills training, guide
collaborative problem-solving etc.

Spatial perspective: In the technology case, the main space is set up as a factory with a production
line to produce purified bottled water. Right next to the production area, there is an area with tables and
screens to stand next to. These can, for example, be used for compact theoretical interludes or
demonstrations of machine-parts. At the other side, there are glass spaces in which various elements of the
production line are simulated. The stairs from the production area lead to the workspaces of the marketing
and sales department and the multifunctional spaces upstairs, which can be used for presentations,
workshops, group work, meetings or individual study.

Instrumental perspective: The production line with the machines is the most prominent instrument in

15
EDU/WKP(2012)18

this learning environment. In the design of this learning environment, specific attention is paid to the
machinery. Most of these machines have see-through exteriors and can be opened easily. These features are
unlike machines in working factories, where the insides of machines stay hidden and only the more
qualified and experienced workers are allowed to open them. An example of a boundary object in the
technology case is the planning board. On the planning board, the work activities of both the production
floor and the marketing and sales department are tuned and related to the customer specific requirements.
In other words, it connects the different actors both within the learning environment (the process operators
and marketing and sales) and outside (suppliers and customers).

Temporal perspective: An example of the temporal perspective is that in this learning environment a
production run can be stopped when needed, to allow the learners to carefully analyse a problem that
occurred with the machinery and collaboratively work towards a solution for this problem.

Quick win: Usually, redesigning hybrid learning environments is a long, drawn-out process requiring
major effort. However, in many hybrid learning environments, quick wins may be identified. Quick wins
help to get the process of redesign started and provide results in the meantime. They can also help to
overcome resistance which often emerges during redesign processes.

For this case, the quick win can be identified from the instrumental perspective. Though the
machinery is well-designed, the paper and digital artefacts can provide quick wins. For example, during the
quality control process, learners in the role of quality controller are expected to gather various kinds of
data, e.g. the number of produced bottles and the amount of waste. Currently, the forms to report these data
are not standardised. Standardisation of the quality control forms, which could also be enriched with
explanations and theory, could help to intertwine learning in the constructed-acquisition quadrant with
working in the realistic-participation quadrant.

4.2 The Hospitality Case

The hospitality case is situated at the grounds of an educational institute offering senior secondary
vocational education (14,000 students). This learning environment offers nine study programmes in total
(both school-based routes with full-time education and work-based routes with part-time education). There
are about 280 students: a mix of chefs/head cooks, (co-ordinating) host(ess), and entrepreneur hospitality
in training. This learning environment houses three different outlets - a lunch room, a health-food bar, and
a formal restaurant - and caters to different types of events (both in-house and outside).

Agency perspective: In designing this learning environment, specific attention is paid to the multi-
level aspect. The organisation of the professional roles is in the form of pyramids. First-year students are
organised in teams of eight junior professionals. Second-year students coordinate a team of eight students.
Third- and fourth-year students manage two coordinating students and therefore manage sixteen students.
In this environment, professional roles include hostesses, cooks, outlet managers, receptionists and stock
management. Besides the professional roles, there are also the familiar educational roles, such as domain
expert, assessor and peer-assessor. Representatives from the business side play a crucial role in the
assessment process.

Spatial perspective: The spaces of this learning environment mirror working spaces in reality, there
are reception areas, kitchens, storage spaces, a large lunch room, a formal restaurant, a café-style health-
food bar, and regular work spaces with computers. These spaces are open enough to allow more
constructed tasks, for example, by using them for theoretical interludes or direct instruction interspaced
with working. Besides, there are spaces tailored to acquisition activities while being near to the work
spaces for easy interchanges.

16
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

Instrumental perspective: In all the work spaces of this case, the various professional tools and
instruments can be found, such as professional kitchen equipment, glassware, and high quality ingredients.
An example of a boundary object can be found in the kitchen. In different places, suspension files are
hanging off the walls. These files contain step-by-step instructions on how to carry out work processes
using terminology from professional practice. They also contain relevant background material on topics
like hygiene for easy reference. Such artefacts support both the work process with work instructions and
the learning process by offering underlying process and theoretical knowledge.

Temporal perspective: In the hospitality case, the temporal aspect is designed for in different ways.
Various forms of time pressure are deliberately applied. The lunch room kitchen has to service large
numbers of customers in a short time-frame (lunch time), requiring learners to collaboratively deliver high
quality service in a short time period. The formal restaurant seats groups of people and requires high
quality service in the evenings, which helps learners to get accustomed to the irregular work schedules of
the hospitality sector.

Quick win: In this case, the quick win is to align the constructed-acquisition quadrant with the
realistic-participation quadrant more strongly. Connections could be made, for example, by (the temporal
perspective) pausing the work process in realistic work spaces in order to collaboratively solve a problem,
thinking aloud by senior professionals, or by providing just-in-time knowledge as theoretical intermezzo.

4.3 The Sports Case

The learning environment of the sports case is a multi-functional centre offering various sports
facilities (swimming pool, gymnastics, volleyball, basketball, fitness etc.), physiotherapy and wellness
facilities and is situated next to an upper vocational secondary school. Students from different study
programmes, like sports, business administration, nursing, health, welfare and social care, and ICT and
communication, work and learn together in this learning environment. About 150 students from (upper)
vocational secondary school and about 25 from higher education go through the intake and application
process to be matched with a suitable working and learning arrangement. The core of this learning
environment is the real-life business setting offering various sports and leisure services to actual customers.
The learners from the sports case work next to the regular employees. Having all these learners working
side-by-side with the regular staff gives this business the opportunity to offer extra services to more
customers.

Agency perspective: The organisation of the professional roles is both multi-level and multi-
professional. This learning environment includes a broad range of professional roles, such as sports
instructors, administration staff, facility management, physiotherapists, ICT and communication. All these
roles can be specified in terms of seniority and expertise. In the design of educational roles, explicit
attention is paid to working professionals also enacting educational roles and close collaboration with
educational professionals of the different programmes that the learners come from. In this learning
environment, the guidance of the students is the responsibility of a heterogeneous team of teachers and
representatives of the business side.

Spatial perspective: The spaces of this learning environment are real work spaces and educational
spaces are added. In some work spaces, there is also room for more constructed, acquisition tasks, for
example on the wall of the gymnastics area, there are white boards for theoretical interludes.

Instrumental perspective: The different sports areas are equipped with suitable sports equipment. In
the other professional spaces, professional tools and instruments can be found, such as ICT facilities with
necessary business software, materials for physiotherapy, and so forth. Specific attention is paid to the
design of CSCL facilities to allow students to learn just-in-time.

17
EDU/WKP(2012)18

Temporal perspective: Time aspects are also designed, for example by providing more time for certain
tasks or by working with more people on tasks than strictly necessary.

Quick win: In this case, a quick win may be seen in how agency perspective could be designed for
more elaborately. Currently, not many educational roles are designed. A wider variety and more specific
educational roles could be introduced. For example, learners could be assigned the role of “observer” and
be equipped with a hand-held video-camera. The observer would afterwards provide feedback and make
implicit aspects of the work process explicit. The observer role could be extended with the role of peer-
assessor.

18
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

Table 1: Case Highlights

Technology case Hospitality case Sport case
Authentic tasks: An operational factory to Three different outlets, A real-life business setting
backbone purify and bottle water, namely, a lunch room, a offering various sports and
complete with the production health-food bar and a formal wellness services to actual
line and a marketing and restaurant, including a customers forms the basis.
sales department is reception and storage areas
constructed on school are constructed to service
grounds. different types of customers.
Agency perspective Multi-professional roles: Multi-level roles: pyramid Students enacting different
technical roles (process structure with senior roles work side by side with
operators, maintenance) are students coordinating junior employees of the business
combined with commercial students. at the core of this learning
and management roles environment.
(marketing and sales; plant
management).
Spatial perspective Factory work spaces with Hospitality spaces, open Close to the areas for
multifunctional spaces close enough for quick discussions customers (a broad variety
by (theoretical interludes, or direct instruction; state-of- of sports and leisure
simulations etc.) the art demonstration facilities) are multi-functional
kitchen and other spaces for meetings, self-
multifunctional spaces. study and group work.
Instrumental An example of a boundary An example of a boundary The different customer areas
perspective object in the technology object can be found in the are equipped with suitable
case is the planning board. kitchen. In different spots sport equipment. In the other
On the planning board, the suspension files are hanging professional spaces
work activities of both the on the walls. These files professional tools and
production floor and the contain step-by-step instruments can be found,
marketing and sales instructions on how to carry such as, professional ICT-
department are tuned and out work processes using facilities with all the
related to the customer terminology from necessary business
specific requirements. professional practice. They software, materials for
also contain relevant physiotherapy and so on.
background material on
topics like hygiene for easy
reference.
Temporal perspective The production line can be Time pressure is deliberately Time pressure is diminished
paused to allow learners to created in the form of for by having more participants
analyse errors and for example the hectic lunch than strictly necessary to
collaborative problem service. carry out the work.
solving.
Quick wins Instrumental perspective, Temporal perspective to Agency perspective, a wider
mainly the digital and paper align constructed-acquisition variety and more specific
artefacts, for example, quadrant with realistic- educational roles could be
standardise the quality participation quadrant more introduced. For example:
control forms and enrich with strongly. For example: pause learners could be assigned
explanations and theory. work process for the role of ‘observer’ and be
collaborative problem equipped with compact,
solving or just-in-time handheld video camera.
knowledge.

In the above table, the different foci of the three cases are showcased. Indeed, hybrid learning
environments manifest in many different varieties. One size definitely does not fit all. Furthermore, a key
feature of hybrid learning environments is capacity to adapt. A hybrid learning environment should be
designed in such a way that participants are able to adapt the roles, spaces, artefacts, and time elements to
suit their needs.

19
EDU/WKP(2012)18

4.4 The Four Quadrants Applied to the Cases

In the previous section, the four perspectives were used to unravel the hybrid learning environments
of the three cases and identify “quick wins”. In this section, the two dimensions and four quadrants are
applied to each case.

Figure 4: Four quadrants of technology case

In Figure 4, four situations of the technology case are positioned in the four quadrants. As example of
constructed-acquisition (Quadrant 1), the tables situated right next to the production line are shown. Each
week, different theoretical themes are scheduled. When there is a suitable moment in the work process to
deal with a topic within these themes, the “‘work master” and learners step out of the production area for a
theoretical intermezzo. The simulation of the water purification tanks is shown as example of constructed-
participation (Quadrant 2).

This simulation is situated in one of the glass workspaces, so the real equipment mirrored in the
simulation is still visible. Often, problems occur during production. The “work master” often stops the
production line to engage the learners in collaborative problem-solving (realistic-acquisition, Quadrant 3).
The production line itself is shown to represent realistic-participation (Quadrant 4). The production line is
shown from above, from the level where the multifunctional spaces and the marketing and sales
workspaces are located.

20
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

Figure 5: Four quadrants of hospitality case

In Figure 5, four situations of the learning environment of the hospitality case are shown. There is a
classic frontal lecture situation (constructed-acquisition, Quadrant 1), though it should be noted that the
lecturer in question enacts multiple roles as he is also a senior professional and role model in the kitchen as
chef with numerous years of experience in Michelin-starred restaurants. To practice specific skills, such as
knife skills, there is a training kitchen for simulations and authentic assignments (constructed-participation,
Quadrant 2).

During service hours, extra time is planned to explain various aspect of preparing the food (realistic-
acquisition, Quadrant 3). One of the realistic spaces, namely the lunch room, is shown as example of
realistic-participation (Quadrant 4). This space is also suitable for theoretical intermezzo’s (Quadrant 1) or
thinking aloud by senior professionals (Quadrant 3).

21
EDU/WKP(2012)18

Figure 6: Four quadrants of the sports case

In Figure 6, four situations of the sports case are shown. The constructed-acquisition (Quadrant 1) is
mostly situated in the school itself, which is next door to the sports and leisure centre where most of this
learning environment is situated. To enrich the daily work, learners have to carry out more complex
assignments in the context of their work such as planning a special event or making the monthly duty-
roster, (constructed-participation, Quadrant 2).

Right next to the sports areas there are multi-functional spaces used for collaborative problem-solving
or reflective meetings (realistic-acquisition, Quadrant 3). As example of realistic-participation (Quadrant 4)
- the swimming pool - is shown, where a student is teaching a group of children while a senior professional
is observing from the bench beside the pool.

5. Concluding remarks

This paper focuses on hybrid learning environments as a means to overcome the problematic nature of
the transition between school and work in its wider societal context. In the past decade, the notion of a
learning environment as the setting, the context in which learning is situated has become widespread. In
this paper, we follow Goodyear (2001), who presents an extensive definition and states that a learning
environment consists of the physical and digital setting in which learners carry out their activities,
including all the tools, documents and other artefacts to be found in that setting. In addition to the physical
and digital setting, it includes the socio-cultural setting for such activities. A learning environment is
considered hybrid if it incorporates both acquisition and participation processes, as well as constructed and
realistic situations. We want to stress that it is important to interpret the dimensions of acquisition-
participation and acquisition-constructed as variables – scales - instead of polar opposites. Hybrid learning
environments should intentionally be planned and designed in such a way that each side of the dimension
can gradually and seamlessly convert into the other side. This allows the interwoven learning and working
processes to benefit from the strengths of both formal, school-based learning and from realistic experiences

22
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

in the workplace. In contrast to contemporary forms of workplace simulations, work-integrated learning

and so on, which aim at connecting aspects of learning in school and learning in work settings, hybrid
learning environments seek to integrate and merge learning and working.

Naturally, situations from each of the four quadrants can also take place in different learning
environments instead of in a single, hybrid learning environment. Such dispersed situations can have
hybrid characteristics, but are strictly speaking not a hybrid learning environment according to our
definition. Learners could develop an integrated knowledge base by engaging in learning activities of four
quadrants dispersed across different settings. We argue that this may not sufficient as it imposes the full
responsibility for the integration of different learning activities in different settings on the learner. The
pivotal point is that learners have to be supported and scaffolded to connect the learning outcomes of each
of the quadrants; only then they will be able to merge learning outcomes and work experiences into an
integrated knowledge base.

To come to terms with the complexity of hybrid learning environments, we propose to further unravel
the concept by first analysing the professional tasks. We argue that a hybrid learning environment consists
of interlaced authentic tasks and intertwined learning processes from each of the four quadrants separately
and the quadrants in deliberate conjunction (the back bone). These tasks and processes trigger all kinds of
individual and collective activity, namely, enactment of the designed roles (agency perspective), usage of
designed physical and digital spaces (spatial perspective) and handling of the offered instruments
(instrumental perspective), according to the designed time-aspects (temporal perspective). To some extent,
triggering these mechanisms or processes will be as intended, or they will be adapted to suit the situation
and learner(s) in question, while the remainder will be unintended. So, both intended and unintended
learning experiences and outcomes may be attained.

The concept of hybrid learning environments provides one important answer to the problematic nature
of integrating different types of knowledge and experiences in answer to the high demands of our
knowledge-driven society. As such, the described developments showcase possible directions into the
future.

23
EDU/WKP(2012)18

REFERENCES

Aalsma, E. (2011). De omgekeerde leerweg: een nieuw perspectief voor het beroepsonderwijs [Reversed
learning: A New Perspective on Vocational Education]. Delft: Eburon.

Akkerman, S.F., Bronkhorst, L.H. and Zitter, I. (2011), The Complexity of Educational Design Research,
Quality and Quantity DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9527-9.

Baartman, L.K.J. and De Bruijn, E. (2011), “Integrating Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes: Conceptualising
learning processes towards vocational competence”, Educational Research Review, DOI:
10.1016/j.edurev.2011.03.001.

Beers, P.J., Boshuizen, H.P.A., Kirschner, P.A., and Gijselaers, W.H. (2005), “Computer Support for
Knowledge Construction in Collaborative Learning Environments”, Computers in Human Behavior,
12, 623-643.

Billett, S. (2006), “Constituting the Workplace Curriculum”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38 (1) 31-48.

Billett, S. (2011), Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences –
final report, Strawberry Hills NSW, Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Brown, A. (1992), “Design Experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex
interventions in classroom settings”, Journal of the Learning Science 2, 141–178.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989), “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning”,
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32.

Collins, A. (1992), “Towards a Design Science of Education” in: Scanlon, E., O’Shea, T. (eds.) New
Directions in Educational Technology, Springer, Berlin. pp. 15–22.

Collins, A., Joseph, D., Bielaczyc, K. (2004), “Design Research: Theoretical and methodological issues”,
Journal of the Learning Science, 13, 15–42

De Bruin, E. and Leeman, Y. (2011), Authentic and self-directed learning in vocational education:
challenges to vocational educators, Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 694 -702.

Design-Based Research Collective (2003), “Design-based Research: an Emerging Paradigm for

Educational Inquiry”, Educational Research, 32, 5–8

Dumont, H. and Istance, D. (2010), “Analysing and designing learning environments for the 21st century”,
in H. Dumont, D. Istance and F. Benavides (Eds.), The Nature of Learning. Using research to inspire
practice (pp. 19-34). OECD Publishing.

Engeström, Y. (2007), “Putting Vygotsky to Work: the Change Laboratory as an Application of Double
Stimulation” in: Daniels H., Cole M., Wertsch J.V. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky.
pp. 363–382. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

24
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

Engeström, Y. (2009), “From Learning Environments and Implementation to Activity Systems and
Expansive Learning”, Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 17-33.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2004), “Expansive Learning Environments: Integrating organizational and
personal development”, in Rainbird, H, Fuller, A. and Munro, A (eds.) Workplace Learning in
Context, London: Routledge.

Goodyear, P. (2001), “Effective networked learning in higher education: Notes and guidelines”, in
Deliverable 9, Volume 3 of the Final Report to JCALT (Networked Learning in Higher Education
Project). Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/docs/ guidelines_final.doc.

Gravemeijer, K., van Eerde, D. (2009), “Design Research as a Means for Building a Knowledge Base for
Teachers and Teaching in Mathematics Education”, Elementary School Journal 109, 510–524

Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., and Oliver, R. (2007), “Immersive learning technologies: Realism and online
authentic learning”, Education, 19(1), 65–84.

Järvelä, S. and Volet, S. (2004), “Motivation in Real-life, Dynamic and Interactive Learning Environments:
Stretching Constructs and Methodologies”, European Psychologist, 9(4), 193-197.

Jossberger, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., Boshuizen, H. and Van de Wiel, M. (2010), “The Challenge of Self-
directed and Self-regulated Learning in Vocational Education: A theoretical analysis and synthesis of
requirements”, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 62(4), 415-440.

Kirschner, P.A. (2005), “Learning in Innovative Learning Environments”, Computers in Human Behavior,
21, 547-554.

Könings, K.D., Brand-Gruwel, S. and Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005), “Towards More Powerful Learning
Environments through Combining the Perspectives of Designers, Teachers, and Students”, British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 645-660.

Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
University Press.

Pentland, B. T., and Feldman, M. S. (2005), “Organizational Routines as a Unit of Analysis”, Industrial
and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793-815.

Simons, P. R. J., Van der Linden, J., and Duffy, T. (2000), “New learning: Three ways to learn in a new
balance”, in P. R. J. Simons, J. Linden, and T. van der Duffy (Eds.), New Learning (pp. 1–20).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Schaap, H., Van der Schaaf, M.F. and De Bruijn, E. (2011), “Development of Students’ Personal
Professional Theories in Senior Secondary Education”, Evaluation and Research in Education, DOI:
10.1080/09500790.2010.550280.

Sfard, A. (1998), “On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing just One”. Educational
Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

Tuomi-Gröhn, T. (2007), “Developmental Transfer as a Goal of Collaboration between School and Work”,
Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 41-62.

Tynjälä, P. (2008), “Perspectives into Learning at the Workplace”, Educational Research Review 3 (2008)

25
EDU/WKP(2012)18

130–154.

Tynjälä, P., Välimaa, J., and Sarja, A. (2003), “Pedagogical Perspectives on the Relationships between
Higher Education and Working Life”, Higher Education, 46(2), 147–166.

Unwin, L. (2009), Connecting Workplace Learning and VET to Lifelong Learning. Paper Beyond Current
Horizons. Retrieved February 2012, from http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/ch4_unwinlorna_workplacelearningandlll20090116.pdf

Van Aken, J. E. (2004), “Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest
for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules”, Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219-
246.

Van Aken, J. E. (2005), “Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of
Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management”, British Journal of Management, 16(1), 19-36.

Van den Akker, J. (1999), “Principles and Methods of Development Research”, in J. van den Akker, R. M.
Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, and T. Plomp (Eds.), Design Approaches and Tools in Education
and Training (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Clark, R.E., and de Croock, M.B.M. (2002), “Blueprints for Complex Learning:
The 4C/ID-model”, Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 39-61.

Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Kirschner, P.A., and Kester, L. (2003), “Taking the Load off a Learners' Mind:
Instructional design for complex learning”, Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5-13.

Zitter, I. (2010), Designing for Learning; Studying Learning Environments in Higher Professional
Education from a Design Perspective, Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University/University of
Applied Sciences, Utrecht.

Zitter, I., Kinkhorst, G., Simons, P.R.J., and Ten Cate, Th.J. (2009), “In Search of Common Ground: A task
conceptualization to facilitate the design of (e) learning environments with design patterns”,
Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 999-1009.

Zitter, I., De Bruijn, E., Simons, P.R.J. and Ten Cate, T.J. (2011), “Adding a Design Perspective to Study
Learning Environments in Current Higher Education”, Higher Education, 61(4), 371-386.

Zitter, I., De Bruijn, E., Simons, P.R.J. and Ten Cate, T.J. (2012), “The Role of Professional Objects in
Technology-enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education”, Interactive Learning
Environments, 20(2), 119-140.

26
 EDU/WKP(2012)18

Recent OECD publications of relevance to this Working Paper

• Innovating to Learn, Learning to Innovate, OECD Publishing, 2008.

• The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice, OECD Publishing, 2010.

• Inspired by Technology, Driven by Pedagogy: A Systemic Approach to Technology-Based

School Innovation, OECD Publishing, 2010.

• Learning for Jobs, OECD Publishing, 2010.

• Working Out Change, Systemic Innovation in Vocational Education and Training, OECD
Publishing, 2009.

The OECD Education Working Papers Series On line

The OECD Education Working Papers Series may be found at:

• The OECD Directorate for Education website: www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers

• Online OECD-ilibrary: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/oecd-education-working-

papers_19939019

• The Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) website: www.repec.org

If you wish to be informed about the release of new OECD Education working papers, please:

• Go to www.oecd.org

• Click on “My OECD”

• Sign up and create an account with “My OECD”

• Select “Education” as one of your favourite themes

• Choose “OECD Education Working Papers” as one of the newsletters you would like to receive

For further information on the OECD Education Working Papers Series, please write to:
edu.contact@oecd.org.

27