Emerging practice and research in blended learning

Full text

Running Head: RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
The following is a draft version from a chapter soon to be printed in the Handbook of Distance
Education.
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In
M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–
350). New York, NY: Routledge.
Emerging Practice and Research in Blended Learning
Charles R. Graham
Department of Instructional Psychology & Technology
Brigham Young University
(801) 422-4110
charles.graham@byu.edu

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
2
Abstract
This chapter introduces the concept of blended learning as the combining of online and face-to-
face instruction. Background and analysis related to variations in institutional definitions of
blended learning as well as rationales for adopting blended learning are presented. Prominent
models of blended learning in higher education, k-12, and corporate training contexts are
highlighted. A synthesis of current research related to blended learning is organized around the
themes of theory, learning effectiveness, learner satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, access and
flexibility, and cost effectiveness. The chapter ends with recommendations for future research
related to blended learning environments.
Keywords: blended learning, hybrid course, mixed mode, online and face-to-face modalities,
learning environments, learning effectiveness, access, flexibility, learner satisfaction, cost
effectiveness

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
3
1. Background and Definition of Blended Learning
Discussion of blending learning (BL) is appearing with increased frequency in both the
scholarly literature and the popular press. A 2011 literature search by the author found close to
200 dissertations and hundreds of journal articles on the topic. Additionally, the American
Society for Training and Development identified BL as a top trend in the knowledge delivery
industry (Rooney, 2003). In higher education the use of BL has grown rapidly, with predictions
that it will become the “new traditional model” (Ross & Gage, 2006, p. 167) or the “new
normal” in course delivery (Norberg, Dziuban, & Moskal, 2011, p. 207). Historically, blended
learning was predominantly found in corporate and higher education contexts, but its use is now
increasingly found in in K-12 education (Staker, Chan, Clayton et al., 2011; Picciano, Seaman et
al., 2011). A 2008 report sponsored by the North American Council for Online Learning
(NACOL) projected, “Blended learning is likely to emerge as the predominant model of the
future” (Watson, 2008, p. 3).
Despite current popularity of the term blended learning, it is defined with considerable
variation across institutional contexts. While researchers have expressed frustration over the
unclear definitional contours of this new BL ecosystem (see Oliver & Trigwell, 2005; Teng,
Bonk, & Kim, 2009; Picciano, 2009), the fact is that the landscape of BL is still evolving rapidly.
Much of the current research in BL has focused on attempting to describe and chart its
boundaries. Operational definitions and taxonomies developed for BL environments currently
lack the widespread consensus or maturity that researchers desire. This section will highlight
four central issues related to definitions of BL.
1. What is being blended?
2. Should reduced seat time be part of the definition?

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
4
3. Should the quantity of online instruction be part of the definition?
4. Should quality factors be part of the definition?
1.1 What is being blended?
The primary issue in defining BL is the question of what is being blended? Several
analyses of existing definitions have been published. Graham (2006) identified the literature’s
three most common answers to the question: (1) blending online and face-to-face instruction, (2)
blending instructional modalities (or delivery media), and (3) blending instructional methods.
Oliver & Triggwell (2005) identified and critiqued six different “mixes” that could be involved
in a BL approach. In order to avoid “another insufficient definition” of BL, Sharpe et al. (2006,
p. 18) identified eight dimensions on which blending might occur.
The most common use of the term BL denotes a combination of traditional face-to-face
and online instruction. Other proposed definitions do not distinguish BL course experiences from
either distance learning or traditional face-to-face instruction. For example, mixing content
delivery media or pedagogies is common across both distance and face-to-face learning. Using
either of these blends to define BL would conflate the definitions, essentially making everything
BL.
1.2 Is Less Seat Time Required?
A second issue focuses on how institutions operationalize the distinction between
traditional face-to-face courses and BL courses. Operational definitions are important in
clarifying the options they offer their students. At the core of this issue is the point at which a
face-to-face course becomes a BL course? Do significant online components constitute BL if
students meet for the same amount of time in class?

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
5
As traditional learning environments increase use of information and communication
technologies (ICTs), critical distinctions between face-to-face and distance learning are difficult
to base solely on technology use. Some researchers express concern that BL should go beyond
merely “‘bolting’ technology onto a traditional course, using technology as an add-on to teach a
difficult concept or adding supplemental information” (Vaughan, 2007, p. 82). Thus some
definitions of BL include a reduction in face-to-face contact or seat time (Vaughan, 2007;
Picciano, 2009; Mayadas & Picciano, 2007). For example, Picciano’s (2009) definition requires
that “a portion (institutionally defined) of face-to-face time [be] replaced by online activity” (p.
10).
1.3 How Much Online Learning is Required?
A third issue commonly raised in defining BL is how much online learning is required to
define the experience as BL? Does a face-to-face course with one brief online experience
qualify? Conversely, should an online course with a face-to-face orientation be considered BL?
Several authors have acknowledged this issue by defining the boundary between BL and
other modalities as a proportion of content delivered online. For example, Allen & Seaman
(2007) categorized traditional as having 0% of content delivered online, web facilitated as 1-
29% online, blended as 30-79% online, and online as 80% or more. Similarly, Watson et al.
(2010) set a threshold of 30% online delivery of content for an environment to be considered
blended. A challenge with percentage thresholds is the difficulty in measuring something that is
not easily or accurately quantifiable. Additionally, even if a percentage could be accurately
determined, what practical difference would exist between courses with 29% versus 30% of
content delivered online?

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
6
1.4 Should quality be included in the definition?
A fourth issue prominent in definitions of BL is whether or not quality should be
included in the definition. The inclusion of quality in the definition is primarily supported by
those who desire to use BL as a tool for transformational change. For example, Garrison and
Kanuka (2004) defined BL as “the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning
experiences with online learning experiences” (p. 96, emphasis added). Similarly, in 2005
participants in the Sloan-C Blended workshop included in their definition “courses that integrate
online with traditional face-to-face class activities in a planned, pedagogically valuable
manner” (Picciano, 2005, p. 97, emphasis added). These subjective qualifiers to BL definitions
are well intentioned but more aspirational than practical. They stem from a fear that the
transformational potential of BL course redesign could be compromised by those not concerned
with improving pedagogical quality (Graham & Robison, 2007; Vaughan, 2007)—a fear that is
not unfounded. Salomon (2002) warned of education systems’ tendency to preserve themselves
and their practices: “A most powerful and innovative technology is taken and is domesticated, or
if you want—trivialized, such that it does more or less what its predecessors have done, only it
does it a bit faster and a bit nicer.” (p. 72).
1.5 Can a Vague Definition Actually be Useful?
It may be helpful to think of the term blended learning as a boundary object (Norberg,
Dziuban, & Moskal, 2011): an element shared across communities of practice, “plastic enough to
adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to
maintain a common identity across sites. . . .weakly structured in common use . . . strongly
structured in individual site-use” (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 393).

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
7
Agreement seems widespread that BL involves a combination of face-to-face and online
learning. Beyond that, individual researchers and institutions differ in how they further limit
definition boundaries. Some require a reduction in face-to-face seat time, while others may
specify levels of online or face-to-face instruction for BL. In a review of the BL literature and
implementation practices in the United Kingdom, researchers recognized benefits to a broadly
structured definition of BL:
We noted from the interviews that some institutions have developed their own
language, definitions or typologies to describe their blended practices. We suggest
that this poor definition [of blended learning] may be a strength and part of the
reason why the term is being accepted. The lack of definition allows institutions
to adapt and use the term as they see fit, and to develop ownership of it. (Sharpe,
et al., 2006, p. 17)
In this chapter, BL will simply be defined as learning experiences that combine face-to-
face and online instruction.
2. Models of Blended Learning in Practice
Current emphasis has focused on distinguishing BL from traditional and online
coursework. However, future learning systems may be differentiated less on whether they blend
than on how they blend (Ross & Gage, 2006). A time may come when the term blended learning
becomes obsolete because blending has become the new normal (Cross, 2006; Graham, 2006;
Norberg, Dziuban, & Moskal, 2011). However, currently a label is helpful to refer to these
structurally different environments.
The contemporary BL ecosystem is rich with innovation and creativity. The diversity of
blends reflect the range of possibilities for transforming students’ learning experience. With

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
8
time, taxonomies and widely accepted models will provide additional stability for researchers
and practitioners. This section of the chapter highlights several prominent examples of emerging
BL models. Current models tend to focus on physical dimensions of the learning environments
and very general high-level pedagogical approaches.
2.1 K-12 Education Models
BL has been steadily increasing in K-12 contexts (Picciano et al., 2011), partially as an
alternative to purely online models and in response to community expectations and funding
models that require schools to physically supervise children during the day (Wicks, 2010). Only
recently have efforts been made to systematically characterize the K-12 blends as different from
prior traditional and distance learning options. Watson (2008) analyzed ten charter/virtual
schools along a spectrum containing seven levels from fully online to traditional face-to-face,
varying in the amount of face-to-face versus online instruction as well as optional or required
components of both systems. Two years later, Watson participated in expanding the model to
include seven defining dimensions:
1. Level of online instruction (unit/lesson, single course, entire curriculum)
2. Time (fixed daily schedule, modified schedule, open entry/open exit)
3. Role of online components (enhance traditional instruction, transform traditional
instruction)
4. Teacher role (leads instruction, supports instruction, not involved)
5. Student role (teacher-driven learning, teacher-guided learning, independent
learning)
6. Student support (little or none, school-based mentoring, school and home
mentoring)

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
9
7. Student to teacher ratio (traditional classroom ratio, 2-3 times traditional
classroom ratio, instructional helpdesk model)
In 2011, the Innosite Institute released a research report documenting 40 case studies of
BL in K-12 contexts across the United States (Staker et al., 2011). The report classified BL
models along two dimensions in a 2D graph: the horizontal dimension representing the physical
location of the student (brick and mortar to remote) and the vertical dimension representing the
location of the course content (offline to online). Within this framework six models were
identified (see Table 1), and each of the 40 programs was classified as one of the models. Most
recently the six models were further collapsed into four models (Staker & Horn, 2012).
--------------------------
Insert Table 1 here
--------------------------
2.2 Higher Education Models
Many institutions of higher education have developed an institution-specific BL
categorization. Typically these models vary along the dimension of how much of a course is
taught face-to-face versus mediated by technology (see Table 2 for three examples). Picciano
(2009) created a two-dimensional representation of blended models with a face-to-face versus
online dimension on the horizontal axis and a minimal to infused technology dimension on the
vertical axis.
--------------------------
Insert Table 2 here
--------------------------

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
10
Some of the earliest models of higher education BL resulted from a study of 30 course
redesign projects funded by the National Center for Academic Transformation and the PEW
Charitable Trusts (Twigg, 2003). The three-year grant program involving universities from
across the United States was designed to enhance quality and save funding through redesigning
large enrollment courses. Of the 30 course redesigns, 26 used BL approaches to achieve cost
savings and quality gains, while 4 adopted a purely online approach (Graham & Allen, 2009).
Table 3 outlines the 5 different models that emerged from the redesign.
--------------------------
Insert Table 3 here
--------------------------
2.4 Corporate Models
Rossett & Frazee (2006) outlined three general models (see Table 4) describing common
blends in the corporate environment. The anchor and bookend blend represents a mixture of
three common environments: instructor-led classroom instruction, independent online learning,
and instructor-guided online learning. The bookend and field blends also highlight a trend
supported by BL that integrates learning directly into workplace activities.
--------------------------
Insert Table 4 here
--------------------------
Many corporate training models emphasize integration of informal and formal learning
environments, embodied in a move from instructor-led classroom learning to real-time
workplace learning supported by online learning tools. Collis (2006) outlined a multi-national
company’s model that centers each course around a business need or competence gap and

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
11
focuses on completing a complex work-based activity with face-to-face support from supervisors
and online connection to remote experts and peers. Lewis & Orton (2006) described a three-
phased BL model at IBM:
1. Phase 1: 26 weeks of self-paced online learning in the workplace environment
2. Phase 2: 5 days of face-to-face in-class instruction in the company learning lab
3. Phase 3: 25 weeks of online learning focused on applying skills in the workplace
3. Blended Learning Research
Research related to BL is relatively undeveloped compared to research in distance and
traditional learning environments. In fact, much of the early work in BL has occurred as an
outgrowth of distance learning research. As developed in Section 1, the issues and foci of BL
research and ways they compliment and are distinct from traditional distance learning research
are still being defined. This section of the chapter first explores theoretical frameworks that
researchers are using to guide research in BL contexts. Then the Sloan Consortium’s five pillars
(learning effectiveness, learner satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, access, and cost effectiveness)
are used as an organizing framework for reviewing the current BL research.
3.1 Theory
Theory provides a common language and focus for creating and discussing knowledge in
scholarly communities (Dubin, 1978). Behavioral and social science groups have explored
extensively what constitutes theory and what role theory plays in the knowledge creation
process. Burkhardt & Schoenfeld (2003) noted that “a lack of attention to coherent theory
building leaves us looking balkanized and incoherent, the whole … being less than the sum of its
parts” (p. 13).

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
12
As BL research increases, theoretical frameworks should be developed to address the
issues unique to BL environments. Shea (2007) suggested several existing conceptual
frameworks that could be used, including the how people learn (HPL) framework that focuses on
the development of learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and community-
centered learning environments (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Bunderson (2003)
recommended (among other possibilities) the theory of engaged collaborative discourse (Xin,
2002) as a lens for analyzing BL environments. A few researchers have attempted to connect or
extend distance education theories to address BL issues. The most comprehensive of these is the
work of Garrison and Vaughan (2008) using the community of inquiry framework with
constructs of social, teaching, and cognitive presence to situate and analyze the design of
university-level BL (Akyol, Garrison, & Ozden, 2009; Borup, Graham, & Velasquez, 2011;
Borup, West, & Graham, 2012). Other researchers have used the theory of transactional distance
with concepts of autonomy, dialog, and structure to explain findings in BL contexts (Dron,
Seidel, & Litten, 2004; Wheeler, 2007; Lim, Fadzil, & Mansor, 2011).
Other prominent theories applied to the design of BL environments include Keller’s
(1983) theory of motivation, Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory and Laurillard’s (1993)
conversation theory (see Keller, 2008; Stubbs, Martin, & Endlar, 2006; Heinze, Procter, & Scott,
2007). Structuration theory, which explains the relationship between social structure and
individual agency, has been used heavily in information systems research. Conversation theory
outlines a multi-stage process describing the communication between instructor and student.
Finally, several researchers interested in the adoption of BL as an educational innovation have
used Rogers’ (1983) diffusion of innovations theory to frame their analyses (Intharaksa, 2009;

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
13
Grgurovic, 2010; Fetters & Duby, 2011), explaining both the stages of adoption and the factors
that affect the rate of adoption of innovations.
While some of the research in BL is solidly grounded in theory, most of the existing
research has sought to describe or solve localized challenges without contributing to coherent
development of theory. Many studies consider theory only as background information or as a
lens to describe findings or outcomes; few attempt to contribute substantively to the conversation
about theory. Just as distance learning required theory to focus researchers on psychological
rather than physical distance, BL needs theories to focus researchers on the substantive psycho-
social issues that make it distinct.
3.2 Learning Effectiveness
The first important question addressed by the BL research regards its effectiveness as an
environment for helping students learn. A challenge inherent in this question deals with which
characteristics of learning environments have potential to directly impact learning. Media
studies resulting in “no significant difference” have taught researchers that while the physical
characteristics (affordances) of the environment enable and constrain particular pedagogical
methods, the active ingredient in learning is the pedagogy rather than the medium (Clark, 1983).
Although the physical characteristics of the learning environments (e.g., online or face-to-face)
are not causal factors, they may represent classes of pedagogies distinct enough to enable
differences to be measured in meta-analyses where researchers have not yet identified the actual
causal factors.
At least five recent meta-analyses have looked specifically at BL as a moderating
variable (Paul, 2001; Zhao et al., 2005; Sitzmann et al., 2006; Bernard et al., 2009; Means et al.,
2009). A dissertation by Paul (2001) compared the effectiveness of Web-based training (WBT)

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
14
environments (80 studies) with blended environments combining face-to-face and WBT (15
studies). The study reported a minimal difference in favor of blended over purely online courses,
with the mean effect size of the blended condition at +0.27 and the WBT condition at +0.23. In
2005 Zhao et al. conducted a meta-analysis considering a dozen moderating factors, which found
that of all the factors, instructor involvement (76 studies) had the most significant impact. They
concluded that largely because of instructor involvement “studies that used a combination of
technology and face-to-face education resulted in the most positive outcomes” (p. 1863). A
meta-analysis in 2006 by Sitzmann et al. compared the effectiveness of web-based instruction
(WBI) and BL with classroom instruction (CI). Results were analyzed separately for outcomes
in declarative (104 studies) and procedural knowledge (18 studies); BL was determined to be
more effective than CI, with effect sizes of +0.34 for declarative knowledge and +0.52 for
procedural knowledge outcomes. The effects of BL on the outcomes were much larger than the
effect sizes for pure WBI compared with CI, which were +0.07 for declarative knowledge and -
0.15 for procedural knowledge. Additionally, Bernard et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of
distance education (DE) courses that compared synchronous DE (5 studies), asynchronous DE
(37 studies), and mixed DE (i.e., blended; 7 studies). This study found no significant difference
among the three DE modalities, but concluded that the low number of studies available in the
non-asynchronous DE categories suggested a need for further research attention.
Most recently, in 2009 the U.S. Department of Education sponsored a meta-analysis
looking at contrasts between online and traditional face-to-face learning (Means et al., 2009).
The analysis used 50 different contrasts from 45 published studies comparing online and face-to-
face instruction. In 21 of the 50 cases, online learners had opportunities for face-to-face contact
with an instructor and were therefore considered BL. The primary findings of the study claimed

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
15
that “classes with online learning (whether taught completely online or blended) on average
produced stronger student learning outcomes than did classes with solely face-to-face instruction.
The mean effect size for all 50 contrasts was +0.20, p < .001.” (p. 18). When the data were
disaggregated to compare the effects from the purely online contrasts (29 cases) with the BL
contrasts (21 cases), researchers found BL to be superior, with a mean effect size of +0.35
compared to a mean effect size of +0.05 for purely online.
These meta-analyses provided evidence of differences in outcomes of online, blended,
and face-to-face learning that are worth studying. However, the causal factors that lead to the
improved outcomes are not understood. The analysis of Zhao et al. suggested that instructor
involvement may be a critical factor. The Means et al. outcomes similarly attributed the largest
pedagogical effect to instructor-directed learning environments. However, these studies did not
identify aspects of instructor involvement that are important: e.g., Is something qualitatively
different about the kinds of instructor interactions in a face-to-face or synchronous high-fidelity
environment versus interactions in an asynchronous text-based environment? Or is instructor
involvement more critical for certain kinds of learning (declarative versus procedural)? The
Means et al. study reported opportunity for face-to-face time with the instructor during
instruction to be one of the significant moderating variables for online learning. Results from the
attempt of the Bernard study to differentiate between learning declarative knowledge and
procedural knowledge seemed to imply that human interaction does not have a significant
moderating effect on acquiring declarative knowledge. Others have argued that improved
outcomes may have more to do with increased learner time on task in the BL environment
(Sitzmann et al., 2006; Means et al., 2009).

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
16
While the meta-analyses give a broad view of the impact of BL in experimental studies,
many non-experimental studies have also looked at learning effectiveness in BL contexts. The
Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness at the University of Central Florida (UCF), an
early institutional adopter of BL, conducted a multi-year study involving tens of thousands of
students examining success rates (defined as C- grade or above) of their online, blended, and
face-to-face course offerings. The analysis accounted for college, gender, and modality. They
found that while college was the best predictor of success rates, within each college the success
rates for BL were higher than both face-to-face and entirely online courses for both genders
(Dziuban et al., 2004). Another study looking at success rates of BL offerings at the Rochester
Institute of Technology (with a high number of students with hearing impairment) reported 95%
of students completing courses with a C- grade or above (Starenko, Vignare, & Humbert, 2007).
Many smaller studies have also found positive learning outcomes for BL courses (Reasons et al.,
2005; Boyle et al., 2003; Cottrell & Robinson, 2003; Dowling et al., 2003; O’Toole & Absalom,
2003; Riffell & Sibley, 2004). Larson and Sung (2009) went beyond academic performance and
found that 52% of BL students had an increased interest in the subject matter, more than either
the online or face-to-face students.
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, more research is needed to identify the
quantity and quality factors of the blended designs that impact achievement and success rates.
Shea and Bidjerano (2011) recently completed a study using the community of inquiry
framework to analyze levels of teaching presence and social presence in blended and online
learning environments and the relative impact of these constructs on cognitive presence. The BL
students reported higher levels of all three components of the teaching presence construct
(instructional design, facilitation of discourse, and direct instruction) and two of the three social

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
17
presence components (affective communication and open communication with instructor and
other students). Researchers have reasoned that this could explain why meta-analyses show
students in blended courses outperforming students in purely online courses.
3.3 Learner Satisfaction
Research has also attempted to identify what leads to learner satisfaction in BL courses.
Learner satisfaction is complicated, as it is influenced by the expectations, goals, and preferences
of the learners as well as the course design and implementation. For example, a learner who
expects no instructor interaction and experiences a moderate interaction level might be very
satisfied, while a student expecting high interaction might be dissatisfied with the same moderate
level.
Vignare (2007) suggested a need to identify and benchmark the elements that lead to
satisfaction in BL environments. A couple of studies have attempted to do this. Dziuban,
Moskal, & Hartman (2005) used factor analysis to identify two dimensions of satisfaction, which
they identify as “learning engagement” and “interaction value.” They later identified eight
elements that contribute to learner satisfaction in online and blended courses (Moskal, Dziuban,
& Hartman, 2010). Rothmund (2008) also found a correlation between learner interaction and
satisfaction in blended courses. Akyol, Garrison, & Ozden (2009) found that students valued
both social presence and teaching presence in their BL experiences.
Because student satisfaction is connected to learner dispositions as well as course design,
some researchers have hypothesized that student satisfaction with BL will be moderated by the
learner characteristics. For example, the course satisfaction of non-traditional adult learners may
be significantly influenced by the convenience, flexibility, and reduced opportunity costs of BL
(Moskal, Dziuban, & Hartman, 2010). Researchers at the University of Central Florida sought to

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
18
understand how satisfaction might be influenced by generational markers (e.g., millennials,
boomers, genXers) (Dziuban, Moskal, & Hartman, 2005; Dziuban, Moskal, Brophy-Ellison, &
Shea, 2007; Dziuban, Moskal, & Futch, 2007). They found significant differences, with
millenials feeling the least favorable towards blended environments. Another study used Kolb’s
(1984) Learning Style Inventory to determine if students with different learning styles had
different satisfaction profiles in a blended course (Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2008). The researchers
hypothesized that assimilators (oriented towards information & ideas) would be more satisfied
by online components, while divergers (oriented towards people & feelings) would be drawn to
the face-to-face components of the blend. The researches found significant differences between
the views of the two groups on all six measured elements of the blended environment.
Assimilators scored the online and face-to-face environments as a close 1st and 2nd place, while
divergers placed the greatest value on the face-to-face environment and least value on the online
environment. Graff (2003) also looked at learning styles within blended courses and found a
significant difference in how learners experienced a sense of community based on learning style.
Students with “intuitive” learning approaches (judgments based on feelings) experienced less
sense of community than other students in the blended courses. Rovai & Jordan (2004)
conducted a study looking at the sense of community developed in fully online, blended, and
traditional face-to-face courses. The findings suggest that blended learning experiences build a
stronger sense of community among students than either fully online or traditional courses.
Available evidence shows that many learners value both the richness of interactions in a
face-to-face environment and the flexibility, convenience, and reduced opportunity costs
associated with online learning. Perhaps this combination is why most research finds high levels
of student satisfaction with BL options. However, researchers must be cautious because, as with

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
19
learning effectiveness, it is the pedagogical possibilities (like interaction levels or learner choice)
enabled by the modality that can lead to satisfaction. In fact, recent research looking at over a
million course evaluations across different course formats showed that “modality does not
impact the dimensionality by which students evaluate their course experiences” (Dziuban &
Moskal, 2011, p. #abstract in press page # not available yet).
3.4 Faculty Satisfaction
The University of Central Florida found that 88% of instructors were satisfied with
teaching blended courses and that 81% were “definitely” willing and 13% “probably” willing to
teach another blended course (Dziuban et al., 2004). This compares to the 87% faculty
satisfaction with teaching purely online courses, with only 67% “definitely” willing to teach
purely online again (Dziuban et al., 2004). All faculty involved in a BL pilot program at the
University of Wisconsin were happy with their first blended teaching experience and were
willing to recommend the approach to others (Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta, 2002). However, in
contrast a BL pilot project at the Rochester Institute of Technology found only 41% were willing
to teach a blended course again (Vignare & Starenko, 2005).
Faculty satisfaction with course redesign efforts involving online learning was influenced
by student-related factors (satisfaction, interaction levels, performance, etc.), instructor-related
factors (recognition, reliable technology, collaboration opportunities, professional development,
etc.), and institution-related factors (workload, compensation, promotion and tenure issues, etc.)
(Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009). Student-related factors were of first concern because faculty are not
likely to be satisfied if their students are not having a positive learning experience (Moskal,
Dziuban, & Hartman, 2010). Larsen & Sung (2009) used student ratings of faculty competence
as an indirect measure of faculty satisfaction in blended and online contexts; they reported

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
20
student ratings of exceptional faculty competence for purely online, blended, and face-to-face
modalities at 76%, 44%, and 37% respectively. Many teachers thrive on the relationships that
they build with their students, and those relationships motivate and renew them in their teaching.
Certain forms of online learning that involve minimal interaction between teacher and student or
in which the instructor feels reduced to being an assignment grader can be unsatisfying for
faculty (Hawkins, Barbour, & Graham, 2011; 2012). BL can provide added satisfaction for
faculty (particularly faculty used to traditional modes of teaching) because they are able to have
some face-to-face relationship building with the students.
As with online learning, researchers recognize that workloads for faculty in BL contexts
may increase, especially in the first few years of teaching (Colwell, 2006). Such an increase is
partially due to the expectation of increased communication with the instructor via email and
other ICT channels, as well as increased time required to learn new technologies and teaching
strategies and time required to create and maintain online materials. Faculty who are not
compelled to teach blended courses and receive proper preparation are more likely to be satisfied
with the outcomes (Vignare, 2007). While sustained professional development may increase
faculty workload, it may also facilitate faculty collaboration and teaching success that increase
faculty satisfaction. Effective programs specifically created for supporting faculty in BL course
redesign can be found at the University of Central Florida (Dziuban, Harman, Moskal, et al.,
2004), the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Aycock, Garnham &
Kaleta, 2002), Rochester Institute of Technology (Vignare & Starenko, 2005; Starenko, Vignare,
& Humbert, 2007), and the University of Calgary (Vaughan & Garrison, 2005, 2006).

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
21
3.5 Access & Flexibility
Access issues are driving much of the growth of BL around the world. However, little
research has specifically investigated access and flexibility. A 2007 survey of 366 U.S. school
districts, representing approximately 3,632 schools and 2 million students, identified five
primary reasons for online and BL options:
1. Offering courses not otherwise available at the school
2. Meeting the needs of specific groups of students
3. Offering Advanced Placement or college-level courses
4. Reducing scheduling conflicts for students
5. Permitting students who failed a course to take it again (Picciano & Seaman,
2007, p. 9)
All of these reasons are related in some way to providing learners with access to
educational opportunities that would be difficult or impossible to provide in the traditional way
due to costs. In particular, the online and blended options can address small and rural school
needs as well as diverse student needs like advanced placement and credit recovery courses. A
BL initiative at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) targeted students who were deaf or hard
of hearing, as well as English language learners (ELLs) (Long et al., 2007). Those subgroups
had greater access to classroom participation as discussions were moved from the face-to-face
context to asynchronous discussion forums. As a result, satisfaction levels for both subgroups
were higher than for the normal student population.
In higher education the opportunity costs for participating in traditional learning options
are too high for many potential students who have work, children at home, or other commitments
that would make a rigid school schedule inaccessible. Flexible online options reduce the

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
22
opportunity costs associated with time and place scheduling, but often come at the cost of losing
access to a high-touch, relationship-oriented environment with instructors and peers. Data from
an international study investigating the use of information and communication technologies in
higher education found that change towards more flexible student options is happening at a slow
pace (Collis & Wende, 2002). BL options provide students with opportunities for benefit/ cost
tradeoffs relevant to their own circumstances and preferences. Blended options can be of
particular interest to institutions that reach out to non-traditional learners in the local
communities where they are already well known and trusted; in the literature this idea, referred
to as localness, has been an emphasis of Sloan Consortium grant funding (Mayadas & Picciano,
2007; Moloney, Hickey, Bergin, Boccia, Polley, & Riley, 2007; Sachs, 2007).
3.6 Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness drives institutions towards adopting BL approaches in higher
education (Betts, Hartman, & Oxholm, 2009). The University of Central Florida, for example,
has been able to reduce costs with improved scheduling efficiencies and reduced need for
physical infrastructure for BL courses (Dziuban et al., 2004, 2011). The National Center for
Academic Transformation supported early research to examine whether universities could
engage in large-scale course redesign that would simultaneously decrease cost and improve
learning outcomes (http://www.thencat.org). They offered $6 million in grants to 30 institutions
to engage in course redesign projects and follow detailed cost analysis procedures. Half of the
course redesigns involved BL with reduced classroom seat time, seven involved significant
technological enhancements with no reduction in seat-time, and eight involved moving
completely online with some optional face-to-face class sessions (Graham & Allen, 2009).
Twigg (2003) reported collective cost savings across all the projects of $3.6 million each year,

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
23
with institutional cost reductions ranging from 20% to 84% with an average savings of 40%.
Additionally, the projects reported quality improvements such as higher course completion rates,
student satisfaction, retention rates, and attitudes towards the subject matter.
Historically corporations have been more effective at reporting figures related to cost
effectiveness than institutions of higher education. However, Blain (2010) reported that only 3%
of global companies and 26% of European companies measure return on investment (ROI).
Bersin and Associates conducted a large-scale study to identify “what works” in corporate BL
(Bersin, 2003), looking closely at BL training programs in 16 large corporations, with an
emphasis on determining ROI. Almost all of the BL programs studied generated an ROI of
100% or better. Factors related to cost reduction for the blended programs included reduction in
wait time for training, reduction in training hours and associated salary expenses, and reduction
in facilities and other training costs. Institutions that have reported significant ROI due to BL
training include Avaya (Chute, Williams, & Hancock, 2006), Microsoft (Ziob & Mosher, 2006),
IBM (Lewis & Orton, 2006), and Intel (Mahesh & Woll, 2007).
4. Recommendations for Future Research
With increasing use of blended learning in higher education, corporate training, and K-12
learning contexts, more theoretically grounded research is needed to guide practice. The
foundation for creating scholarly knowledge lies in theoretical development, including
frameworks that can address any of the three important activities of knowledge creation: explore,
explain, or design (Gibbons & Bunderson, 2005). Exploring is the process of identifying,
describing, and categorizing, which must include documenting the wide range of different
blended learning models and developing taxonomies that enable meaningful systemization of the
models for analysis of both physical and pedagogical characteristics of the blends. In addition,

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
24
theoretical frameworks must explain the how and why behind BL outcomes, which may include
extending prominent distance learning theories to the BL context as well as developing new
theories specifically created for understanding BL issues. Also, the development of design-based
instructional theories will aid practitioners in tailoring BL to their specific needs.
Research shows some general patterns across the three learning modalities (face-to-face,
online only, and blended) but still needs to uncover the root causes for improved learning
outcomes in BL contexts. Productive areas for exploration include the impact of interaction
quantity and quality on outcomes, the relationship between face-to-face and online presence in
BL community building, and the correlation between time on task and BL outcomes. Garrison
and Vaughan (2008) identified establishing and maintaining cognitive presence in blended
communities as the top BL research need related to the CoI framework. Other researchers have
suggested exploring the relationship between learner characteristics and success with different
blends (Dziuban et al., 2007). This will be particularly important as adolescent learners, who lack
such adult learning characteristics as high self-regulation, are introduced to BL.
Although a number of studies point to student and faculty satisfaction with BL, more is
needed to link the satisfaction data with specific BL design features. Such connections enable
better understanding of how. BL designs impact not only performance and satisfaction outcomes
but also learners’ dispositions towards the subject matter, which are likely to significantly impact
learner persistence beyond the boundaries of a course.
While access and flexibility are among the most frequently cited purposes for adopting
blended learning, very little research has sought to quantify the impact of BL on accessibility as
well as on opportunity costs associated with increased flexibility. Similarly, empirical research
related to the cost effectiveness of BL is limited, particularly in K-12 and higher education.

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
25
Research related to both access and cost issues could help institutions, designers, and learners
develop and select the models of BL best suited to their needs.
Finally, although BL is often described in terms of blending the physical attributes of
online and face-to-face instruction, the psycho-social relationships are the issues at the core of
blended learning research and design. Because education is a design-oriented field like
engineering or architecture, it must be concerned with tradeoffs involving cost, efficiency, and
effectiveness. The foundational challenge of BL research is seeking to understand (1) what
humans do very well and (2) what machines do very well, so that the strengths of both can be
maximized as they are blended in the service of learning.
References
Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M.Y. (2008). A study of student’s perceptions in a blended learning
environment based on different learning styles. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1),
183-193.
Akyol, Z., Garrison, D.R., & Ozden, M.Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry:
Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65-83.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Sloan
Consortium report.
Aycock, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Lessons learned from the hybrid course project.
Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6), 9–21.
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamim, R.M., Surkes, M.A, &
Bethel, E.C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance
education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
doi:10.3102/0034654309333844
Bersin
Betts, K., Hartman, K., & Oxholm, C. (2009). Re-examining & repositioning higher education:
twenty economic and demographic factors driving online and blended program enrollments.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(4), 3-23.
Blain, J. (2010). Current learning trends in Europe and the United States. Cegos Group white
paper.
Bolliger, D.U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online
teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116.
doi:10.1080/01587910902845949

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
26
Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Pickard, P. (2003). Using blended learning to
improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2),
165-178. doi:10.1080/1358165032000153160
Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Velasquez, A. (2011). The use of asynchronous video
communication to improve instructor immediacy and social presence in a blended learning
environment. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended learning across disciplines: Models for
implementation (pp. 38-57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012 in press). Improving online social presence
through asynchronous video. Internet and Higher Education.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Bunderson, C.V. (2003). Four frameworks for viewing blended learning cases: Comments and
critique. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 279-288.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A.H. (2003). Improving educational research:Toward a more
useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3-14.
doi:10.3102/0013189X032009003
Chute, A.G., Williams, J.O.D. , & Hancock, B.W. (2006). Transformation of sales skills through
knowledge management and blended learning. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 105-119). San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational
Research, 53(4), 445-459.
Collis, B. (2006). Putting blended learning to work. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 461-473). San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Collis, B., & van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education:
An international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher
education. New Economy. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies report.
Colwell, J.L. (2006). Experiences With A Hybrid Class!: College Teaching, 2(2), 2004-2007.
Cottrell, D.M., & Robison, R.A. (2003). Case 4: Blended learning in an accounting course.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 261-269.
Cross, J. (2006). Forward. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs (p. xvii-xxiii). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Dowling, C., Godfrey, J., & Gyles, N. (2003). Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods
improve accounting students’ learning outcomes? Accounting Education, 12(4), 373-391.
doi:10.1080/0963928032000154512
Dron, J., Seidel, C., & Litten, G. (2004). Transactional distance in a blended learning
environment. Alt-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 163-174.
doi:10.1080/0968776042000216219
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Dziuban, C.D., Hartman, J. L., Cavanagh, T. B., & Moskal, P.D. (2011). Blended courses as
drivers of institutional transformation. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended learning across
disciplines: Models for implementation (pp. 17-37). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
27
Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2011, in press). A course is a course is a course: Factor invariance in
student evaluation of online, blended and face-to-face learning environments. The Internet
and Higher Education. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.003
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the
mainstream. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global
perspectives, local designs (pp. 195-208). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Moskal, P., Sorg, S., & Truman, B. (2004). Three ALN modalities: An
institutional perspective. Elements of Quality Online Education: Into the Mainstream (pp.
127-148). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., & Futch, L.S. (2007). Reactive behavior, ambivalence, and the
generations: Emerging patterns in student evaluation of blended learning. In A.G. Picciano
& C.D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research Perspectives (pp. 179-202).Needham,
MA: Sloan Consortium.
Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning and the
generations: Knowledge is power-no more. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of
quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 85-100). Needham, MA: Sloan
Consortium.
Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Brophy-Ellison, J., & Shea, P. (2007). Technology-enhanced education
and millennial students in higher education. Metropolitan Universities, 18(3), 75-90.
Fetters, M. L., & Duby, T. G. (2011). Faculty development: A stage model matched to blended
learning maturation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(1), 77-83.
Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology
Today, 8(6). Retrieved from http://www.associatedcolleges-
tc.org/cotf/COTFX/materials/smeatonHybridCoursesnotes.doc
Garrison, R. D., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework,
principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gibbons, A. S., & Bunderson, V. (2005). Explore , explain , design. Encyclopedia of Social
Measurement (Vol. 1, pp. 927-938). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Elements of the theory of structuration.
Elements. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Graff, M. (2003). Individual differences in sense of classroom community in a blended learning
environment. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2), 203-210.
doi:10.1080/1358165032000165635
Graham, C.R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions.
In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives,
local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Graham, C.R., & Allen, S. (2009). Designing blended learning environments. In P. L. Rogers, G.
A. Berg, J.V. Boettecher, C.Howard, L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Distance Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 562-570). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Graham, C.R., & Robison, R. (2007). Realizing the transformational potential of blended
learning: Comparing cases of transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher
education. In A.G. Picciano & C.D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research
Perspectives (pp. 83-110). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Grgurovic, M. (2010). Technology-enhanced blended language learning in an ESL class: A
description of a model and an application of the Diffusion of Innovations theory.
(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
28
Hawkins, A., Barbour, M.K., & Graham, C.R. (2012, in press). Everybody is their own island:
Teacher disconnection in a virtual school. International review of research in open and
distance learning.
Hawkins, A., Barbour, M. K., & Graham, C. R. (2011). Strictly business: Teacher perceptions of
interaction in virtual schooling. Journal of Distance Education, 25(2). Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/726/1241
Heinze, A., Procter, C., & Scott, B. (2007). Use of conversation theory to underpin blended
learning. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 1(1/2), 108-120.
doi:10.1504/IJTCS.2007.014213
Intharaksa, U. (2009). Using Diffusion of Innovation Theory to explain the degree of faculty
adoption of web-based instruction in a Thai university. (Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Jones, N. (2006). E-College Wales, a case study of blended learning. In C.J. Bonk & C.R.
Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 182-
194). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-
design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 386–434). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3‐learning. Distance Education,
29(2), 175-185. doi:10.1080/01587910802154970
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Larson, D.K., & Sung, C.-H. (2009). Comparing student performance: Online versus blended
versus face-to-face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31-42.
Laurillard, D.M. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of
educational technology. London, UK: Routledge.
Lewis, N.J., & Orton, P.Z. (2006). Blending learning for business impact: IBM’s case for
learning success. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 61-75). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Lim, T., Fadzil, M., & Mansor, N. (2011). Mobile learning via SMS at Open University
Malaysia: Equitable, effective, and sustainable. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 12(2), 122-137.
Long, G.L., Vignare, K., Rappold, R.P., & Mallory, J. (2007). Access to communication for
deaf, hard-of-hearing and ESL students in blended learning courses. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3), 13.
Mahesh, V., & Woll, C. (2007). Blended learning in high tech manufacturing: A case study of
cost benefits and production efficiency. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2),
43-60.
Mayadas, A.F., & Picciano, A.G. (2007). Blended learning and localness: The means and the
end. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 3-7.
Mayadas, A.F., & Picciano, A.G. (2007). Blended learning and localness: The means and the
end. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 3-7.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-
based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
U.S. Washington D.C.: Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and
Policy Development.

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
29
Moloney, J.F., Hickey, C.P., Bergin, A.L., Boccia, J., Polley, K., & Riley, J.E. (2007).
Characteristics of successful local blended programs in the context of the Sloan-C pillars.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 29-47.
Moskal, P.D., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2010). Online learning!: A transforming environment
for adults in higher education. In T.T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult learning:
New frontiers for teaching practices (pp. 54-68). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C.D., & Moskal, P.D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On
the Horizon, 19(3), 207-216. doi:10.1108/10748121111163913
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can “blended learning” be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 17-
26. doi:10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.2
O’Toole, J.M., & Absalom, D. (2003). The impact of blended learning on student outcomes: Is
there room on the horse for two? Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 179-190.
doi:10.1080/1358165032000165680
Paul, D.S. (2001). A meta-analytic review of factors that influence the effectiveness of Web-
based training within the context of distance learning. (Umpublished Doctoral Disseration).
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Picciano, A.G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The mutimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 13(1), 7-18.
Picciano, A.G., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district
administrators. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Picciano, A.G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2011, in press). Examining the extent and
nature of online learning in American k-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.004
Reasons, S.G., Valadares, K., & Slavkin, M. (2005). Questioning the hybrid model: Student
outcomes in different course formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(1),
83-94.
Riffell, S.K., & Sibley, D.F. (2004). Can hybrid course formats increase attendance in
undergraduate environmental science courses? Journal of Natural Resources and Life
Sciences Education, 33, 1-5.
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rooney, J.E. (2003). Knowledge infusion: Blending learning opportunities to enhance
educational programming and meetings. Association Management, 55(6), 26-32.
Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT and
our customers in higher education. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of
blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 155-168). San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer.
Rossett, A., & Frazee, R.V. (2006). Blended learning opportunities. American Management
Association special report.
Rothmund, C. (2008). Correlation between course interactivity and reported levels of student
satisfaction in hybrid courses. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Capella University,
USA.
Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative
analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 13.
Sachs, D. (2007). Pace University, blended learning and localness: A model that works. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 15-19.

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
30
Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution?
Educational Technology, 42(2), 71-75.
Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of
blended e-learning!: A review of UK literature and practice. The Higher Education
Academy report.
Shea, P. (2007). Towards a conceptual framework for learning in blended environments. In A.G.
Picciano & C.D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research Perspectives (pp. 19-35).
Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2011). Understanding distinctions in learning in hybrid, and online
environments: An empirical investigation of the community of inquiry framework.
Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16. doi:10.1080/10494820.2011.584320
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of
web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623-
664. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x
Staker, H., Chan, E., Clayton, M., Hernandez, A., Horn, M.B., & Mackey, K. (2011). The rise of
K–12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. Innosight Institute report.
Star, S.L., & Griesemer, J.R. (1989). Institutional ecology, `translations’ and boundary objects:
Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social
Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001
Starenko, M., Vignare, K., & Humbert, J. (2007). Enhancing student interaction and sustaining
faculty instructional innovations through blended learning. In A.G. Picciano & C.D.
Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (pp. 161-178). Needham, MA:
Sloan Consortium.
Stubbs, M., Martin, I., & Endlar, L. (2006). The structuration of blended learning: Putting
holistic design principles into practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2),
163-175. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00530.x
Teng, Y.-T., Bonk, C.J., & Kim, K.-J. (2009). The trend of blended learning in Taiwan:
Perceptions of HRD practitioners and implications for emerging competencies. Human
Resource Development International, 12(1), 69-84. doi:10.1080/13678860802638842
Twigg, C.A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning.
Educause Review, 38(5), 28, 30, 32-36, 38.
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, R.D. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty
development community. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1-12.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.11.001
Vaughan, N., (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International
Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94.
Vaughan, N. & Garrison, D.R. (2006). How blended learning can support a faculty development
community of inquiry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4), 139-152.
Vignare, K. (2007). Review of literature blended learning: Using ALN to change the classroom
—Will it work? In A.G. Picciano & C.D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research
Perspectives (pp. 37-63). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Vignare, K., & Starenko, M. (2005). Blended learning pilot project: Final Report for 2003-2004
and 2004-2005. Online Learning Department Rochester Institute of Technology. Rochester,
MA. Retrieved from https://ritdml.rit.edu/handle/1850/276
Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education.
North American Council for Online Learning report.

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
31
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping pace with K-12
online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group
report.
Wheeler, S. (2007). The influence of communication technologies and approaches to study on
transactional distance in blended learning. Alt-J: Research in Learning Technology, 15(2),
103-117. doi:10.1080/09687760701470924
Wicks, M. (2010). A National Primer on K-12 Online Learning. iNACOL report.
Wright, N., Dewstow, R., Topping, M., & Tappenden, S. (2006). New Zealand examples of
blended learning. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 169-181). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Xin, M.C. (2002). Validity centered design for the domain of engaged collaborative discourse in
computer conferencing. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Brigham Young University,
Provo, UT.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H.S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical
analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record,
107(8), 1836-1884. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x
Ziob, L., & Mosher, B. (2006). Putting customers first at Microsoft: Blending learning
capabilites with customer needs. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended
learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 92-104). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
32
Tables
Table 1.
K-12 blendbed learning models identified by Staker, Chan, Clayton, et al. (2011, p. 7-8)
Model
Description
Face-to-Face
Driver
● Face-to-face (F2F) teachers deliver most of the curricula
● F2F teacher deploys online learning case by case to supplement or
remediate
Rotation
● Students rotate between an online self-paced environment and a
traditional teacher-led classroom
● the online portion can be remote or on-site at the school
● the F2F teacher usually oversees the online work
Flex
● Online platform delivers most of the curricula
● F2F teachers provide on-site support as needed
Online Lab
● Online platform delivers the course in a brick-and-mortar lab
environment
● Students interact with an online instructor around course content
● A paraprofessional supervises but provides little content expertise
Self-Blend
● Students choose to take online courses to supplement on-site curricula
● Online learning is remote and traditional courses are F2F
Online Driver
● Online platform and remote teacher deliver all curricula
● Students work remotely
● F2F check-ins are sometimes optional and other times required
● Some programs allow for participation in traditional extracurricular
activities

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
33
Table 2.
University categories defining the range of options between face-to-face and online
learning.
University of Glamorgan,
Wales
(Jones, 2006)
University of Waikato, New
Zealand
(Wright, et al., 2006)
University of Central
Florida, USA
(Dziuban et al., 2006)
Basic ICT usage –
e.g.powerpoint presentations
E-enhanced – access to
online resources. Use of Bb
for announcements, lecture
notes, student communication
E-focused – discussion
boards, online assessment
tests, interactive learning
materials
E-intensive – whole
modules/awards delivered
and moderated online.
Supported online - courses
are taught in the traditional
lecture/tutorial mode,
supported by materials
provided online
Somewhat online - there is
an online component for on-
campus students
Mostly online - there is a
mix of online and some on-
campus work in the
qualification
Fully online - students can
complete qualifications
without coming onto the
campus
E courses are technology-
enhanced courses (this
designation has recently
been eliminated because
there were few if any
courses that were not using
technology in some way.)
M courses are blended
courses with reduced seat
time
W courses are web courses
(completely online)

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
34
Table 3.
Higher Education blended learning models identified by Twigg (2003) and summarized in
Graham (2009, p. 378)
Model
Description
supplemental
● Supplemental online materials provided
● Online quizzes
● Additional online activities
● Online activities can take place in a computer lab or at home
replacement
● Reduction of in-class meeting time
● Replacement of face-to-face (F2F) classtime with online activities
● Online activities can take place in a computer lab or at home.
emporium
● Eliminates class meetings
● Substitutes a learning resource center with
○ online materials
○ on-demand personal assistance
buffet
Student chooses learning options
● Lecture
● Online
● Discovery laboratories
● Individual projects
● Team/Group activities
● And so forth
fully online
● All online learning activities
● No required F2F class meetings
● (In some cases) optional F2F help

RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
A draft of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Distance Education:
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
35
Table 4.
Corporate blended learning models identified by Rosset & Frazee (2006, p. 10-12)
Model
Description
anchor blend
● Starts with a substantive face-to-face (F2F) classroom experience
● Followed by independent online experiences
bookend blend
● An introductory experience online or F2F
● A substantive learning experience online or F2F
● A conclusion that extends the learning into practice at work
field blend
● The employee is given a range of instructional assets
● The employee chooses when and where to use the assets as needed
to meet work-related challenges
● Many instructional assets are available online
● A classroom experience can be part of the mix