The BonJour training course for adults aged 55+ is designed to use Blended Learning as its main delivery format. Blended Learning combines face-to-face and online learning elements and offers flexibility for adult learners.
However, Blended Learning in itself is primarily a method of delivering content rather than a complete educational approach. It defines how learning is organised, but not how learning should be designed in a meaningful and effective way.

In particular, Blended Learning does not provide a clear andragogical foundation that addresses the specific needs of adult learners aged 55 and over. It also lacks essential elements of a comprehensive framework, such as clearly defined learning objectives, pedagogical strategies, learner engagement methods, and structured guidance for educators.

As a result, there is a risk that Blended Learning remains a technical solution rather than a high-quality educational experience. To ensure effectiveness, inclusiveness, and sustainability, Blended Learning must therefore be embedded within a structured andragogical framework that supports both learners and educators in a coherent and purposeful way. This article describes the “BonJour!” andragogical framework for adult learning 55+

Theoretical Foundations of the Planning Model (Andragogical Approach)

The planning model used in BonJour draws on a well-established tradition in didactic theory, adapting it specifically for adult and older learners. Its structure reflects the Berlin Model (Berliner Modell) developed by Paul Heimann, Gunter Otto, and Wolfgang Schulz in the 1960s — one of the most influential frameworks for the systematic analysis and planning of teaching and learning processes (Heimann, Otto & Schulz, 1965).

The Berlin Model as a Foundation

The Berlin Model holds that any learning situation is shaped by a set of interdependent factors: no single element can be planned or changed in isolation because each affects all the others.

This principle of interdependence (Interdependenzannahme) is central to the model’s logic. It distinguishes between two categories of factors:

• Condition fields (Bedingungsfelder) — the given circumstances that frame the learning situation, such as the learners’ prior knowledge, motivation, and the institutional or material context.
• Decision fields (Entscheidungsfelder) — the elements over which the educator exercises active professional judgement: goals, content, methods, and media.

Rational, reflective planning — rather than intuitive or ad hoc decision-making — is the explicit aim of this model. Educators are expected to be able to articulate and justify every choice they make, and to recognise that a change in one factor necessarily calls for a reconsideration of all the others.

Adaptation for Adult and Older Learners

The BonJour planning model translates the six factors of the Berlin Model into a framework shaped by the principles of andragogy (Knowles, 1980) and geragogy. Where the Berlin Model was originally developed for formal schooling, BonJour applies its logic to adult education settings — and specifically to older learners, who bring greater heterogeneity in prior experience, health, digital familiarity, and emotional readiness than younger student populations.

The correspondence between the two frameworks is as follows, showing the German terms as defined from the authors:

BonJour Planning Model	Berlin Model
Participants	Anthropogenic conditions (Lernvoraussetzungen)
Goals	Intentions / objectives (Ziele)
Content	Subject matter (Inhalte)
Methods	Methods (Methoden)
Educator	(implicit condition: educator competence and role)
Frames	Socio-cultural conditions (Rahmenbedingungen)

 Participants corresponds to what the Berlin Model calls anthropogenic prerequisites — the learners’ age, prior knowledge, motivation, and needs. In an andragogical context, this factor carries particular weight: adults are self-directed, experience-rich learners, and any planning that ignores who they are and what they bring to the room is likely to fail. For older learners, this includes awareness of potential anxieties around cognitive decline, digital competence, or social judgement.

Goals maps directly onto the Berlin Model’s Intentionen. In adult education, objectives must be specific, realistic, and — critically — shared with and accepted by the participants themselves. Adults learn best when they understand and agree with the purpose of what they are doing.

Content corresponds to the decision field of Inhalte. For andragogical settings, content selection is guided not only by subject logic but by relevance to learners’ actual lives. Content that cannot be connected to real experience or immediate application is unlikely to engage adult learners effectively.

Methods maps onto the Berlin Model’s Methoden. The choice of method must be coherent with both the goals and the content — and must be appropriate for adult learners who expect to be active participants, not passive recipients. BonJour structures its sessions around Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, ensuring that method always begins with lived experience and moves towards practical application.

Educator is not an explicit decision field in the original Berlin Model but is implicitly embedded in both condition fields: the educator’s competence, attitude, and role are part of the conditions that shape the learning situation. In the BonJour model, this factor is made explicit, reflecting the reality that the quality of facilitation — including the decision to work with a co-facilitator — directly determines what is possible in any given session.

Frames corresponds to the Berlin Model’s socio-cultural prerequisites (soziokulturelle Voraussetzungen): the available time, physical or digital space, equipment, and institutional context. These are the conditions the educator cannot change but must account for in every planning decision.

Planning as a Dynamic, Interdependent Process

What the Berlin Model contributes above all is a reminder that planning is not linear. It is not a matter of setting a goal and then selecting content and methods in sequence. Every factor conditions every other. If the participant group changes — say, a session planned for confident digital users must now accommodate complete beginners — then goals, content, methods, and the demands placed on the educator all shift accordingly.

This dynamic, systemic view of planning is especially valuable in adult and older learner contexts, where heterogeneity is the rule rather than the exception, and where rigid lesson plans are particularly likely to break down. The BonJour! planning model is designed to support educators in thinking through these interdependencies deliberately and reflectively — before, during, and after each session.

The Flipped Learning 3.0 Framework for content delivering

Flipped Learning 3.0 is an advanced framework that extends traditional Blended Learning to a complete training framework beyond simple content delivery. While Blended Learning focuses on combining online and face-to-face formats, Flipped Learning 3.0 enables a strong pedagogical and andragogical foundation. It ensures that learning is not only accessible, but also meaningful, structured, and learner-centred. Additionally, it enables to use any consistent pedagogy.

At its core, Flipped Learning 3.0 integrates clear learning objectives, competence-based design, and active learning processes. It places the learner at the centre and supports self-directed learning, collaboration, and reflection. In addition, the framework connects digital tools, teaching methods, and assessment strategies in a coherent way. This creates a structured learning experience that supports both educators and adult learners, especially those aged 55 and over.

Merging Flipped Learning 3.0 with the Andragogical Model

The Berlin Model provides a structured approach to planning teaching and learning processes through its key elements: intentions, content, methods, media, and contextual conditions. The Flipped Learning 3.0 framework complements this structure by adding a strong learner-centred, competence-based, and digitally supported approach.

The following section explains how both models can be effectively connected.

1. Intentions ↔ Competence-Based Learning and Learning Outcomes

In the Berlin Model, intentions define the goals of the learning process.

Flipped Learning 3.0 extends this by focusing on clearly defined, competence-based learning outcomes that describe what learners are able to do in real-life situations. This ensures that learning is practical, relevant, and aligned with adult learners’ needs. For adults aged 55+, this includes not only knowledge acquisition but also confidence, autonomy, and digital participation.

2. Content ↔ Microlearning and Structured Learning Pathways

Content in the Berlin Model refers to the selection and organisation of learning material. Flipped Learning 3.0 enhances this through microlearning units and clearly structured learning pathways. Content is broken down into small, manageable elements that are easier to understand and more accessible for adult learners. It uses the two learning spaces: Individual Learning Space (Learning Platform) and Group Learning Space (Onsite training).

This approach supports flexibility and allows learners to progress at their own pace.

3. Methods ↔ Flipped Learning and Active Learning Processes

Methods in the Berlin Model describe how teaching and learning take place.

Blended Learning 3.0 integrates the principles of Flipped Learning, where learners first engage with content individually and then apply knowledge in interactive, group-based settings. This shifts the focus from passive reception to active participation. It encourages discussion, collaboration, and problem-solving, which are essential for meaningful adult learning.

4. Media ↔ Digital Tools and Learning Platforms

Media in the Berlin Model includes all tools and materials used in the learning process.

Flipped Learning 3.0 expands this by integrating digital tools, multimedia content, and online learning platforms. These tools are not used for their own sake, but to support engagement, accessibility, and different learning preferences. For learners aged 55+, this also includes guidance and support to build digital confidence.

5. Anthropogenic Conditions ↔ Learner-Centred Design and Inclusion

The Berlin Model considers learners’ individual characteristics, such as prior knowledge, motivation, and abilities.

Flipped Learning 3.0 strengthens this by applying a learner-centred and inclusive design approach. Learning is adapted to diverse needs, including different learning speeds, digital skills, and personal backgrounds. This is particularly important for older adults, who may have very different experiences with learning and technology.

6. Socio-Cultural Conditions ↔ Flexible and Accessible Learning Environments

Socio-cultural conditions in the Berlin Model refer to the broader learning context, such as institutional settings and available resources.

Flipped Learning 3.0 responds to this by creating flexible and accessible learning environments that combine online and offline elements. This allows learning to take place in different settings and supports participation regardless of time, location, or personal circumstances.

Appendix

Here is a brief compilation of the main scientists with their contributions to a modern didactical approach. In the BonJour! Model we created the andragogical model out of their findings and publications.

Malcolm Knowles (1913–1997) was an American educator and theorist whose work fundamentally shaped the field of adult education in the English-speaking world. As a professor at Boston University and later North Carolina State University, he developed the theory of andragogy — the art and science of teaching adults — as a distinct discipline, contrasting it explicitly with the pedagogy of children. His central work, The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (1973, revised as The Adult Learner, 1990), argued that adults are self-directed, experience-rich learners motivated primarily by internal goals, and that they learn most effectively when content is immediately relevant to their lives and needs.

David A. Kolb (born 1939) is an American educational theorist and professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. Drawing on the work of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Kurt Lewin, he developed the theory of experiential learning, proposing that effective learning occurs through a continuous four-phase cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, and active experimentation. His foundational text, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (1984), remains one of the most widely cited works in educational theory and has been applied extensively in adult education, management training, and professional development.

Paul Heimann (1901–1967) was a German educationalist and professor at the Free University of Berlin, where he developed what became known as the Berlin Model of didactic planning. His central contribution was the systematic analysis of teaching as a structured interplay of mutually dependent factors — goals, content, methods, media, learner prerequisites, and contextual conditions. His foundational work, co-authored with Otto and Schulz, Unterricht – Analyse und Planung (1965), remains a key reference in German-language didactics (Heimann, P., Otto, G., & Schulz, W. (1965). Unterricht – Analyse und Planung. Schroedel).

Gunter Otto (1927–1999) was a professor of art education and general didactics, closely associated with Heimann’s work at the Free University of Berlin. He contributed significantly to the theoretical refinement of the Berlin Model and to its application in aesthetic and cultural education. His collaboration with Heimann and Schulz helped establish the model as a widely used tool for teacher training and curriculum reflection in the German-speaking world.

Wolfgang Schulz (1929–1993) was a professor of education in Hamburg, who later developed the Berlin Model further into the Hamburger Modell, placing greater emphasis on learner emancipation and the social dimensions of teaching. His work bridges systematic planning and critical-reflective pedagogy, making the model more responsive to the lived realities of diverse learner groups.

The most direct theoretical bridge between the Berlin Model and the BonJour planning framework is provided by Horst Siebert (1939–2022), emeritus professor of adult education at the University of Hanover. In his widely used guide Methoden für die Bildungsarbeit (4^th ed., Bielefeld: wbv, 2010), Siebert proposes that method selection in adult education must consider the institutional framework, the participants, the goals and content, and the educator — a set of criteria that maps directly onto the BonJour planning model and confirms the continued relevance of the Berlin Model’s interdependence principle for non-formal adult learning contexts.

A parallel contribution, in the adjacent field of higher education, came from Wolff-Dietrich Webler, long-serving director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Higher Education Didactics (IZHD) at the University of Bielefeld. Working within universities rather than community education settings, Webler developed a similarly systematic approach to reflective teaching and learning design — one that informed, in a modest but tangible way, the broader thinking behind the BonJour model.

Preamble “Blend the Learning”

In 2013, I started wit a project on Quality in Blended Learning. I felt it necessary to examine the concept of Blended Learning – which is interesting in principle – from the perspective of quality: teaching must meet certain quality standards.

This led to a two-year project in which a European project group (Grundtvig Adult Education Project 539717-LLP-1-2013-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP) addressed the issue and developed solutions. One of the outcomes was a book on quality in Blended Learning. Nevertheless, a certain dissatisfaction remained, as there were no concepts in Blended Learning that were, in principle, effective.

In autumn 2018, I met Jon Bergmann, and he had the solution: the Flipped Learning 3.0 Framework, which uses Blended Learning as a concept but satisfies all outstanding requirements within the complete framework.

Ten years after the end of the ‘Quality in Blended Learning Project’ (this is the archive of the project’s web page), I venture a critical assessment of the current situation.

1 Introduction

Blended Learning has become one of the most widely used concepts in educational discourse over the past two decades. It appears in policy documents, institutional strategies, funding programmes, and conference presentations across the world. Everybody seems to be doing it. And yet, if you ask ten educators what Blended Learning actually means, you will likely get ten different answers. That is not a sign of a rich and nuanced concept. It is a warning signal.

This paper argues that Blended Learning, despite its popularity, is conceptually too vague to serve as a meaningful guide for educational design. It lacks a shared definition, a clear pedagogical foundation, and consistent design principles. As a result, it risks becoming — or perhaps already is — little more than a convenient buzzword.

2 Conceptual Ambiguity of Blended Learning

A review of the literature reveals that blended learning is defined in multiple and sometimes contradictory ways. Some authors describe it as a straightforward combination of online and face-to-face instruction. Others insist on the need for deliberate pedagogical integration. The gap between these positions is significant.

Garrison and Kanuka (2004) offered what became one of the most cited definitions: Blended Learning as “the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences.” The key word here is “thoughtful” — suggesting that simply putting some content online does not qualify. Bonk and Graham (2006), on the other hand, described it more structurally as the combination of face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction, leaving the door open for far simpler interpretations.

Allen and Seaman (2010) approached the concept from a purely quantitative angle, defining Blended Learning as any course where between 30 and 70 per cent of instruction takes place online. This percentage-based view reduces a complex educational question to a simple ratio. It tells us nothing about what happens during those online or face-to-face hours, or whether they connect meaningfully at all.

This conceptual ambiguity is not a minor academic debate. It directly limits the analytical and practical value of Blended Learning as a concept. If the same label can describe a carefully designed course built around collaborative inquiry and a course that simply uploads lecture slides to a learning management system, then the label is doing very little work.

3 Lack of Pedagogical Specificity

Blended Learning does not prescribe a specific pedagogical approach, learning theory, or instructional design model. This is not a neutral feature — it is a fundamental weakness. A concept that is compatible with constructivism, instructivism, collaborative learning, and flipped classroom models simultaneously is not a framework at all. It is a container.

To be fair, some authors acknowledge this openly. Bonk and Graham (2006) note that Blended Learning can accommodate a wide range of pedagogical approaches. But acknowledging openness is not the same as providing guidance. A teacher or course designer looking for clear principles will not find them in the Blended Learning literature. What they will find is flexibility — which, on its own, is not enough.

Garrison and Kanuka (2004) rightly emphasise that Blended Learning requires the alignment of learning objectives, activities, and interaction formats. But this is simply good instructional design — not a feature unique to Blended Learning. Any well-designed course, regardless of its format, should do the same.

4 The “Anything Goes” Problem

Due to its broad and flexible definition, Blended Learning risks becoming an umbrella term under which almost any instructional design can be categorised. A short video clip added to a traditional lecture. A weekly online quiz alongside face-to-face seminars. A fully online course with one in-person workshop per semester. All of these can be — and have been — labelled as Blended Learning.

This “anything goes” characteristic is not just intellectually unsatisfying. It has real consequences. When everything qualifies as Blended Learning, the concept loses its capacity to distinguish between good and poor design. It becomes impossible to evaluate whether a blended approach is actually better than a purely face-to-face or purely online alternative — because “blended” no longer means anything specific enough to test.

Owston and York (2018) found that the proportion of online content mattered less than expected for learning outcomes, with the best results appearing at 33 to 50 per cent online. This is useful data. But it still does not tell us what kind of online content, in what sequence, for what purpose, and with what pedagogical rationale — the questions that actually matter for course design.

5 Blended Learning as a Buzzword

The widespread adoption of the term Blended Learning in policy documents, institutional strategies, and funding programmes suggests that it often functions as a rhetorical device rather than a precise academic concept. It carries broadly positive connotations — it sounds modern, flexible, and learner-centred — without committing to anything specific.

This matters. When institutions invest in Blended Learning without a clear definition of what that means in practice, the result is often inconsistent implementation. Some departments may interpret it as flipped classroom design; others as simply adding a Moodle page to an existing course. Both counts. Neither is necessarily wrong. But neither is the same thing.

There is also a risk that positive connotations obscure the absence of pedagogical substance. A course labelled as Blended Learning may receive institutional approval and funding precisely because of the label, rather than because of any clearly defined learning rationale. The term has become, in some contexts, a quality signal without quality criteria.

6 Consequences for Practice and Research

The conceptual vagueness of Blended Learning has practical consequences. In course design, it can lead to inconsistent decisions, unclear learning outcomes, and difficulty in evaluating whether a particular design is effective. If a course does not work well, is it because of the blend, the pedagogy, the content, or the context? Without a clearer framework, it is hard to know — and hard to improve.

For research, the problem is equally significant. Studies on Blended Learning are notoriously difficult to compare because they use different definitions, different measures, and different contexts. A meta-analysis of Blended Learning research is, in many ways, a meta-analysis of several quite different things. This limits the cumulative value of the evidence base.

For projects requiring clear and comparable design criteria — such as Erasmus+ partnerships working across institutions and national contexts — this vagueness is particularly problematic. Shared implementation becomes difficult when the core concept means different things to different partners.

7 Towards a More Precise Alternative

To move beyond the limitations of Blended Learning as a broad and ambiguous concept, more precise design frameworks are needed. These frameworks should explicitly define the pedagogical principles that guide course design, the types of learning activities included, the role of face-to-face and online components, and the methods used to assess learning.

Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) point in a useful direction, emphasising the importance of learning activities and didactic design rather than the format itself. Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes, and Garrison (2013) offer the Community of Inquiry model as one possible framework, grounding blended design in principles of cognitive, social, and teaching presence.

What these approaches share is a shift away from describing the format — online plus face-to-face — towards describing the pedagogical intent. That is the right direction. A framework worth the name should be specific enough to guide decisions, distinguish between good and poor design, and support meaningful evaluation. Blended Learning, as currently defined, does not reliably do any of these things.

8 Lessons Learned & Conclusion

Blended Learning has played a genuinely useful role in opening the conversation about how digital and face-to-face education can work together. That conversation was worth having, and it has produced some valuable insights. But a useful starting point is not the same as a reliable framework.

The core problem is straightforward: Blended Learning is too broad to guide educational design with any precision. It accommodates too many approaches, prescribes too little, and has become too closely tied to institutional branding and policy rhetoric. The term tells us what format a course uses — some online, some face-to-face — but says almost nothing about how or why.

If we are serious about improving the quality of learning — in higher education, in professional training, or in any other context — we need frameworks that are more precise, more pedagogically grounded, and more honest about what they require. The Blended Learning, as a framework, is a useful further development and a promising approach to modern, technology-supported teaching and training. Nevertheless, it will be that what Flipped Learning 3.0 is today.

9 Appendix: Learning Methods

• Constructivism: This is the idea that we learn by doing. You build your own knowledge through experience and by solving problems.
• Instructivism (Lecture-style teaching): This is a more traditional way of learning. A teacher gives you information directly, and you listen to understand the facts.
• Collaborative Learning: This means learning together in a group. You talk to other people to share ideas and help each other understand a topic.
• Flipped Classroom: In this model, you study new material at home first. Then, you use your time in class to do practical work and ask the teacher questions.

10   References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010. Babson Survey Research Group / The Sloan Consortium.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. Routledge.
Owston, R., & York, D. N. (2018). The nagging question when designing blended courses: Does the proportion of time devoted to online activities matter? Internet and Higher Education, 36, 22–32.
Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press.

This article was developed in the frame of the “BonJour! Media Literacy Project”. The author P. Mazohl was the responsible Austrian Project Manager and responsible for the “BonJour! Learning Platform”. This platform represents the web-based learning content in the sense of Blended Learning. Nevertheless, the implementation of the platform followed the Flipped Learning 3.0 Framework (which includes Blended Learning as one of its elements).

When a digital learning platform is designed for adults aged 55 and over, usability is not just a technical concern — it is central to whether the platform works at all. If people find a system confusing, frustrating, or difficult to navigate, they are unlikely to engage with it, regardless of how strong the content may be. This is why the BonJour! Project team chose to evaluate the platform using one of the most established methods in the field: the System Usability Scale, or SUS.

What is the System Usability Scale?

The SUS is a standardised questionnaire that has been used in usability research for decades. It consists of ten short statements about a system — covering aspects such as ease of use, consistency, learnability, and user confidence. Participants respond on a five-point scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The responses are then converted into a single score between 0 and 100.

Scores above 68 are considered above average. Scores above 80 indicate very good usability, and scores approaching or exceeding 90 are regarded as excellent — placing a system in the top tier of comparable digital tools.

How the evaluation was carried out

A total of 30 participants took part in the evaluation across five modules of the BonJour! platform. The questionnaire was administered in German, maintaining the language of the training programme. After completing each module, participants answered the ten SUS questions, allowing the team to assess usability not just for the platform as a whole, but for each module individually.

What the results show

The results are encouraging across the board. The overall mean SUS score for the platform was 84.8 out of 100, placing it firmly in the “very good” range and close to the threshold that benchmarks describe as excellent.

Looking at the individual modules, a clear pattern emerges. Module 1 — the entry point to the course — achieved a score of 76.3. While this is still a good result, it is the lowest of the five modules. This is not surprising: first encounters with a new platform often require more orientation, and users naturally need some time to familiarise themselves with the structure and navigation. The scores then rise consistently, with Module 2 reaching 83.3, Module 5 84.2, and Module 4 an impressive 89.6.

The standout result belongs to Module 3 — Analyse! Truth? — which achieved a mean SUS score of 91.9. This places it in the “excellent” category and suggests that the module’s design, structure, and interaction flow were particularly well received. It represents a best-practice example within the course and offers useful insights for further development of other modules.

What participants said, in numbers

At the level of individual questionnaire items, participants rated the platform particularly highly for ease of use, the quality of integrated functions, and how quickly they were able to learn to use the system. User confidence while navigating the platform was also notably high. Minor variation appeared in responses related to the need for technical support and the perception of consistency — areas that are worth monitoring in future iterations, though they do not indicate any systematic problem.

What this means in practice

A SUS score of 84.8 is a strong result for any digital platform. For a learning tool aimed specifically at adults who may have varying levels of digital experience, it is particularly meaningful. It suggests that the BonJour! platform is accessible, intuitive, and well-structured — and that most users can engage with it without significant barriers.

Usability of this standard supports not only a positive user experience, but also the educational goals of the project. When a platform is easy to use, learners can focus on what matters: the content, the activities, and the skills they are developing. The BonJour! evaluation results suggest the platform is delivering on that promise.

Further reading: SUS explained simply

The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a short, standardised questionnaire used to measure how easy a system is to use. It consists of ten statements — five positive and five negative — which users rate on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The responses are converted into a single score between 0 and 100. This score reflects the overall usability of a system as perceived by its users. It does not measure technical performance, but captures how confident, comfortable, and in control users feel when interacting with the system.

Scores are interpreted against established benchmarks:

• Below 68 — below average; improvements are needed
• 68–79 — good; the system performs adequately
• 80–89 — very good; users find the system largely intuitive
• 90–100 — excellent; the system is considered best-in-class

SUS is widely used in usability research because it is quick to complete, easy to analyse, and produces reliable results even with small groups of participants. It can be applied to any system — digital or physical — and is particularly useful for comparing usability across different versions or modules of a product.