Content uploaded by Vitomir Kovanovic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vitomir Kovanovic on Feb 15, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The hiSTory anD STaTe
oF BlenDeD learninG
olekSanDra SkryPnyk
University of South australia
SreKO JOKSiMOvi
University of edinburgh
viTOMir KOvanOvi
University of edinburgh
Shane DawSon
University of South australia
Dragan gaševi
University of edinburgh
GeorGe SiemenS
University of Texas arlington
athabasca University
55
This report forms one part in a series of articles offering
an overview of the state of distance, online, and blended
learning, and positioning them in relation to the emerging
domain of digital learning. This particular report focuses on
blended learning (Bl), referring to the practices that combine
(or blend) tdtol fc-to-fc (f2f) l wth ol
learning (ol). as the concept of Bl continues to gain trac-
tion in educational settings, researchers are attempting to
establish and verify the learning gains it brings. This report
sks to outl th dbt d BL dtos, pd-
ocl bts, d dccs tht s cdmc
studs, d ct o th futu dcto fo BL. Ou ctcl
overview of the state and development of Bl is structured
to ct th domt thms of twty systmtclly
selected second-order academic studies of Bl. This report
ws m ds oud such domt thms s th
effectiveness of Bl, recommended instructional practices in
Bl delivery and design, as well as the state of research into
BL. Th ds sust tht dcs tcholoy h
fueled the development of Bl from a grassroots practice
to m sch ld. Th mplmtto of BL
pctcs by clud both ol d f2f mods of dly
postly uc studt pfomc, mk BL t-
tct ductol poso. at pst, th ld of BL s
still dependent on the modes of delivery it is derived from,
drawing heavily on ol in both theory and in practice. The
ld of BL s dymclly ch , d much of th
ctqu of th xst sch otd h s lkly to b
pdly ddssd futu wok. Tht b sd, ctcl
ow of th ld susts tht t c futh mtu by
adopting a digital learning perspective in its own activities.
aBSTracT
58 Introduction
the history and state of blended learning
in the traditional educational context, face-to-face (f2f)
classes refer to the cohorts of students able to commit to
o-cmpus stucto pstd cotol bck d
mortar classrooms. This model of education requires that
students be present for regular in-classroom instruction. as
such, the model can be seen as inequitable for those who
my h compt dmds d pots tht mk
ully schduld o-cmpus ttdc dfcult, f ot
impossible.
in contrast, distance education (De) represents a model that
ffods studts oppotuty to udtk poms of
study external to the institution. in essence, this model of
education places no requirements on students to be on-cam-
pus for course instruction, content, or study. This model
s ot ct toducto to th scto; De hs lo
history that evolved from specialist colleges and boutique
poms d couss (s Koo t l. (2015) ths
inTroDUcTion
59
Introduction
the history and state of blended learning
series of papers). Despite a long-established record of offerings, De has been stymied by
the perception that this mode of education delivery is less personal, and primarily caters
to wok dults o ml oups sptd by both tm d spc (Moo & Ks-
ly, 2011). How, th ct owth d sophstcto of itt-bsd tcholos
has seen distance education or online learning (ol) become a staple of post-secondary
d scody stucto. Ths s wll otd by all d Sm (2013), who h b
tck ol cous olmt coss th Utd Stts fo o dcd. Th uthos
dtd tht th pct owth olmt fo ol l couss s ow -
creasing faster than for on-campus offerings.
clearly, the development and adoption of asynchronous and synchronous communication
technologies into the learning space has provided an opportunity to leverage the affordances
of both ducto modls (De d f2f clsss). at pst, couss d poms c b
offd wth xblty fo ccss d ttdc whl t oppotuts fo socl
engagement and interaction. This report discusses the ongoing juxtaposition of traditional
modes of education with distance learning in what has been termed blended learning (Bl),
or hybrid learning. we outline the debate regarding blended learning dtos, lo wth
th pcd pdocl bts d dccs tht s thouh th coc of
tcholos wth f2f ducto s documtd th xst sch lttu.
60 e Rise of Education Technologies
the history and state of blended learning
The riSe oF eDUcaTion
TechnoloGieS
over the past decade, technology has increasingly been used to enhance course and content
offs both th f2f d dstc ducto stts. Tcholoy fo l c b
divided into three broad categories: i) information technologies that support the delivery of
d ccss to fomto; ) commucto d tct tcholos tht mdt us
tcto; d ) socl softw tcholos tht suppot oup-bsd ctts such s
dcso-mk, pl, d hh od l ctts (C. all, 2004; adso,
2008; Hulsm, 2004). Whl th tl fomto tcholos doptd ducto w
computer-based and for personal use, educational iT is now predominately located on the
web (or cloud) and is more socially oriented. This transition to the web or cloud provides for
greater, more diverse access to learning resources and effectively capitalizes on the growth
in web-based connectivity for end-users. communication technologies, initially developed
as independent software for synchronous or asynchronous communication, also applied in
education, have recently been merged into common software platforms for learning, such
s l mmt systms (LMS) o tul l omts (vLe). Wb 2.0 tools
d socl softw tcholos (C. all, 2004) h bld two-wy commucto, s
wll s sh, xtct, d oz kowld, lo wth buld socl ltoshps
(adso, 2008). Du to th ffodcs fo tctty, socl softw tcholos llow
distance learners to be exposed to group-based learning activities previously perceived as
xclus to f2f tch cotxts. Fo xmpl, studts c commuct sychoously
through video conferencing, synchronous chat, or virtual classrooms without the need for
physcl co-locto (Hlms, 2014).
The increased reliance on technology for education delivery and instruction has resulted in
changing perceptions of what now constitutes distance. Students can interact in real-time
in peer-groups or with instructors and even participate in lectures remotely. as such, the
reliance on online technology, alongside the diminishing concept of distance, has given
rise to the term online learning (ol). The adoption of smart devices, the wider use of the
itt, d th dul low cost of tcholoy (r, 2010) h ll plyd pt
d l d tch pctc th 21st ctuy.
61
Dening Blended Learning
the history and state of blended learning
DeFininG
BlenDeD learninG
a positive outcome stemming from the growth in ol has been the capacity for educators
to leverage these new technologies for on-campus teaching. This combination of online
tcholos d f2f stucto hs b dscbd th lttu s blended learning,
mixed mode, hybrid, or online-supplemented. while blended learning is perhaps the most
commonly used phrase, essentially all these terms describe the merging of online technol-
os wth f2f tch.
This report focuses on blended learning (BL), spcclly th pctcs tht comb (o
blend) tdtol f2f wth OL. BL o hybd pctcs pst cotul coc
btw tdtol f2f d dstbutd, tcholoy-mdtd l omts
(Bok & ghm, 2006; ghm & Dzub, 2008). its c s ch pctc c
b loctd o cotuum btw fully f2f to fully ol couss (Hlms, 2014). g
ths bod spctum, t s ot sups tht BL hs multpl d d dtos. Fo
stc, BL c b dd s so of OL, wh 30% – 79% of th cott s dl-
d ol fomt (all & Sm, 2003, 2004; all, Sm, & gtt, 2007;
Ms, Toym, Muphy, Bk, & Jos, 2009; Ms, Toym, Muphy, & Bk, 2013).
Som schs lmt BL pctcs to thos wh f2f stucto compss t lst hlf of
ll clss tm (Bd, Bookhosk, Schmd, Tmm, & abm, 2014). Oths xpd BL
practices to include web-facilitated classroom instruction where the lmS is used for syllabi
d cous commucto (Bluc, goody, & ells, 2007). i oth wods, y stucto
who mploys tcholoy hs/h tch pctc, whth f2f o thouh wb-bsd
dstc ducto pctcs ol ducto (De/OL), could ltmtly f to such
experiences as blended.
62 Dening Blended Learning
the history and state of blended learning
although the discussion in the literature regarding the development of an authoritative
dto s stll op, th dtbl commolts th my ttmpts to d
BL. i ll dtos, BL s cosdd combto of tdtol f2f mods of stucto
with online modes of learning (ol), drawing on technology-mediated instruction, where
all participants in the learning process are separated by distance some of the time. The
distinctions between mixed-mode, hybrid, and blended courses are not well articulated, and
th tms oft usd tchbly (ghm & Dzub, 2008; Ms t l., 2013).
aubly, hybd mpls tht o mod s uusd whl th oth s usd; whl bldd
susts o pcptbl dffc btw mods (Mcg & rs, 2012).
as the concept of Bl continues to gain traction in educational settings, researchers are also
ttmpt to stblsh d fy th toutd l s d bts ssoctd wth
ths modl of ducto. althouh tcholoy poststs fqutly spous sct
learning gains when adopting educational technologies, the realities of such claims are
oft dfcult to msu. Ths pot sks to hhlht th pcd bts losd
th potd dccs o ps s cutly potd th sch.
63
Methods
the history and state of blended learning
meThoDS
Ths pot pods ow of th stt of dc-bsd ds fo BL ppochs
by sythsz th thms d ds fom th mt-lyss d systmtc lttu
reviews on Bl. Such a line of inquiry has been framed by the following research questions:
RQ1. What are the main themes of BL meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews?
RQ2. What is the state of BL as reected through these meta-analyses and systematic
literature reviews?
To identify meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews on Bl, a database search was
combd wth gool Schol d joul sch (Fu 1). Fst, lst of 306 studs
tht cludd OL, De, d BL ws dtd thouh sch of eriC, Scopus, Psychin-
Fo, Pubmed, and ProQuest databases1. an additional 19 studies were retrieved using a
Google Scholar search for similar combinations of terms. a journal search yielded a further
14 studies2. hence, the compiled list included some 339 meta-analyses and systematic
ws of De, OL, d BL. Th schs scd ttls, kywods, d bstcts to
verify the relevance of each extracted article and to assign one or more labels to the list of
studs; spcclly distance education, online learning, or blended learning. if the coder
could not label the study based on the meta-information, the content of the article was
wd to pod futh dtl d clcto. Du ths st, 67 studs pottlly
lt fo BL w dtd.
1 e database search was conducted using the following criteria: title, abstract, and/or keywords containing at least one of the following
terms: meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, scoping study, OR systematic review, AND title, abstract, and/or keywords containing at least one of the
following terms: distance learning, distance education, blended learning, blended education, hybrid education, hybrid learning, online learning,
online education, e-learning, web-based learning, OR web-based education.
2 e list of the relevant journals was obtained f rom the most inuential meta-analyses in distance and online education, and included
American Journal of Distance Education, Journal of Distance Education, Distance Education, International Review of Research in Distance and
Open Education, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Career and Technical Education
Research, Internet and Higher Education, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, and Computers and Education.
64 Methods
the history and state of blended learning
FOCUS OF THIS STUDY
digital library search
selection of distance
education studies
Identied 306 studies
Total of 37 distance
education studies
Manual Journal search
selection of blended
learning studies
identifed 14 studies
Total of 20 blended
learning studies
systematic search end
google scholar search
Merging search results
identifed 19 studies
Total of 32 online
learning studies
Total of 339 unique
studies identifed
selection of online
learning studies
systematic search point
Figure 1 e process of systematic literature search
65
Methods
the history and state of blended learning
Figure 2 Distribution of studies indexed by Scopus as related to BL provisions (query: study’s title, abstract and keywords
as previously discussed, Bl has dual roots in traditional and online modes of learning. This
oluto of BL complctd th dtcto of dly lbl mt-lyss d sys-
tematic reviews for inclusion in this report. For instance, on the one hand, especially in the
ly 2000s, BL ws td to tcholoy tto to cotol clssoom stucto
(S Fu 2). Th cdmc lttu ths cs, cocts BL to such kywods s virtual
learning environments, course management systems, and computer-aided instruction,
mo oths. O th oth hd, BL lly olps wth th lttu o De/OL. i ths
cotxt, th cdmc lttu dws o such kywods s web-based learning, e-learning,
Internet-based learning, online and distance learning/education and distributed learning.
Furthermore, practices of Bl are also referred to as hybrid learning, mixed mode learning,
and more recently the ipped classroom.
KeYwORD
blended learning
computer-aided instruction
computer-assisted instruction
education technology
e-learning
ipped classroom
learning management system
online learning
virtual learning enviroment
web-based training
nUmBer oF arTicleS
For BlenDeD learninG anD relaTeD keyworDS
1980 1990 2000 2010
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
66 Methods
the history and state of blended learning
To b cludd th l lst fo lyss, study hd to mt th follow ct:
i. the study applied a systematic approach to literature analysis, e.g., meta-analysis,
systematic literature review, and meta-synthesis
ii. the study identied ndings related to blended learning as part of the dataset
iii. the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal/conference proceedings or in a
dissertation, available in English
iv. the study was situated in higher education and professional development contexts,
excluding K–12 unless part of a larger dataset embracing higher and/or adult education
addtolly, OL mt-lyss wth sub-st of BL studs, such s Ms t l. (2009) o
Bd t l. (2009), w xcludd f th sm cdmc oup hd coductd mo
recent and Bl-focused analysis using the dataset of primary studies that overlapped with
th po wok.
a lst of scod-od studs slctd fo ths pot compsd 20 mt-lyss d
systematic reviews of Bl (Table 1, Figure 3)
Table 1 Summary of Systematic Analyses and Meta-Analyses of Blended Learning.
StudyTitle Type
Primary
Studies
1Bd t l. (2014)
a meta-analysis of blended learning and
technology use in higher education: From
general to the applied
ma 96
2abuh, J.
(2014)
what might online delivery teach us about
blended management education? Prior
perspectives and future directions
Slr 60
3Hlso t l. (2014)
a thematic analysis of the most highly cited
scholshp th st dcd of bldd
learning research
Slr, Ta 85
4means et al.
(2013)
The effectiveness of online and blended
learning: a meta-analysis of the empirical
literature
ma 45
67
Methods
the history and state of blended learning
StudyTitle Type
Primary
Studies
5Bishop & verleger
(2013)
Th ppd clssoom: a suy of th
researchSlr 24
6Zho & Bslow (2013) Lttu w o hybd/bldd
learningSlr 42
7Dysdl t l. (2013)
an analysis of research trends in
dissertations and theses studying blended
learning
Slr 205
8keengewe & kang
(2013)
a review of empirical research on blended
learning in teacher education programsSlr 23
9Torrisi-Steel & Drew
(2013)
a literature landscape of blended learning
in higher education: The need for better
understanding of academic blended
practice
Slr, Ta 827
10 Mcg & rs (2012) Blended course design: a synthesis of best
practicesQma 67
11 rowe, Frantz, &
Bozlk (2012)
The role of blended learning in the clinical
education of healthcare students: a
systematic review
ma 14
12 Hlso t l. (2012) an analysis of high impact scholarship and
publication trends in blended learning Slr 95
13 gkd, Moow, &
Ds (2011)
online formative assessment in higher
education: a review of the literature Slr 8
14 Cook t l. (2010)
Wht do w kow bout wb-bsd
learning? a systematic review of the
variability of interventions
Slr 65
15 Lds (2009)
Traditional, web-based and hybrid
instruction: a comparison of training
methods
ma 126*
Table 1 (Cont.) Summary of Systematic Analyses and Meta-Analyses of Blended Learning
68 Methods
the history and state of blended learning
StudyTitle Type
Primary
Studies
16 Bliuc, Goodyear, &
ells (2007)
research focus and methodological choices
in studies into students’ experiences of
blended learning in higher education
Slr approx.
300
17 Shp t l. (2006)
The undergraduate experience of blended
e-learning: a review of Uk literature and
practice
Slr & i 14
18 Stzm t l. (2006)
The comparative effectiveness of web-
based and classroom instruction: a meta-
analysis
ma 96*
19 Zho t l (2005)
Wht mks th dffc? a pctcl
analysis of research on the effectiveness of
distance education
ma 52*
20 Pul (2001)
a meta-analytic review of factors that
uc th ffctss of wb-bsd
training within the context of distance
education
ma 15
not: Sr: systmtc w; Ma: mt-lyss; SLr: systmtc lttu w; Ta: thmtc
lyss; QMa: qultt mt-lyss; i: tws. *Th smpl cludd both studs wth BL
and ol instructional interventions
Table 1 (Cont.) Summary of Systematic Analyses and Meta-Analyses of Blended Learning
69
Methods
the history and state of blended learning
6
Figure 3b Coverage of the domain in primary studies
nUmBer oF STUDieS
6
4
2
0
nUmBer oF Primary STUDieS covereD
1-10 11-20 21-50 51-100 >100
he He, aDULT & K12
aDUlT he & aDUlT He & K-12
Figure 3a Coverage of primary studies by dierent types
of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
nUmBer oF STUDieS
4
2
0
nUmBer oF Primary STUDieS covereD
1-10 11-20 21-50 51-100 >100
JOUrnaL arTiCLe TheSiS
conF. PaPer rePorT
Figure 3C Number and type of second order studies
published in dierent years
Figure 3 Descriptive Analysis of the Selected Dataset
Figure 3D Number of primary studies analysed in
systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses, published
in dierent years
JOUrnaL arTiCLe TheSiS
conF. PaPer rePorT
11-20 51-100
1-10 21-50 >100
nUmBer oF STUDieS
6
4
2
0
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2006
2001
nUmBer oF STUDieS
6
4
2
0
2007
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2006
2001
70 Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
SynTheSiS oF SelecTeD
Scholarly work
analysis of the selected second-order studies revealed the following major themes:
i. Eectiveness of BL (Bernard et al., 2014; Landers, 2009; Paul, 2001; Rowe, Frantz, &
Bozalek, 2012; Zhao & Breslow, 2013; Zhao, Lei, Yan, & Tan, 2005)
ii. Review of instructional practices in BL delivery and design (Bishop & Verleger, 2013;
Cook et al., 2010; Gikandi, Morrow, & Davis, 2011; Keengwe & Kang, 2013; McGee &
Reis, 2012)
iii. Review of existing research (Arbaugh, 2014; Bliuc et al., 2007; Drysdale, Graham,
Spring, & Halverson, 2013; Halverson, Graham, Spring, & Drysdale, 2012; Halverson,
Graham, Spring, Drysdale, & Henrie, 2014; Torrisi-Steele & Drew, 2013)
a further theme, related to institutional adoption of Bl, was included to address one sys-
tmtc w d to dw ttto to th lck of sch tht ffctly systmtzs
the experiences in the adoption of Bl practices as reported by individual universities and
organizations.
one obvious limitation of the current synthesis is the challenge of coherence, since the
boundaries of what constitutes Bl differed across reported studies. Furthermore, it has come
to ou ttto tht th thms ctd th scod-od studs do ot compltly
ct th domt thms of pmy sch th ld (cf. Hlso t l., 2014).
effectiveness of Bl
Th ffctss of BL s compd to OL d f2f hs b pomt thm scho-
lly wok. Ths sch hs b of ptcul tst to polcymks d sttutol
dmsttos sk to udstd th pottl mpct o stmt o fo futh
insight into the allocation of future resources. as Bl involves an alternate set of costs when
compared to other modes of instruction, there is an implicit expectation that this model
of l hs to b mo cost-ffct (ghm, 2013; Ms t l., 2009; Tw, 2003).
71
Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
From the corpus of literature for the study, six meta-analyses and two systematic literature
ws ddss th ffctss of BL w dtd (Tbl 2). Follow th tdto
of De and educational technology research, these studies approached the effectiveness of
Bl instruction as an observable increase in effect sizes. That is, a greater effect size indicates
an achievement gain for the treatment (Bl) condition over the control condition within the
sch ds (ross, Moso, & Lowth, 2010, p. 19).
essentially, all selected studies concluded that in situations where the students experienced
BL stucto, whth t ws ol cous wth som ddtol f2f tm, o whth t
ws mostly f2f cous wth som ol tm, studt cdmc chmt ws hh
th tht of studts who xpcd fully f2f o fully ol l mod.
Table 2 Summary of Systematic Analyses and Meta-Analyses of Blended Learning
Study
Bl Boundaries
Findings
Type of
learning
outcomes
measured
Primary Studies
Type of Study
years analyzed
1
Bernard
et al.
(2014)
f2f = 50%; OL
< 50%
Bl conditions exceed
f2f codtos
(g+=0.334, k=117, p
<.001)
any measure of academic
performance 96 ma 1990–
2010
2
means
et al.
(2013)
ol =
30%–80%; f2f
= 70%–20%
BL outpfoms f2f
conditions (g+=0.35,
k=23, p=.001)
only objective and direct
measures of learning, such
as standardized scores,
scores on researcher-
created assessment,
grades, or GPa (excluded
studt/tch
perceptions, satisfaction,
retention, attendance,
etc.)
45 ma 1996–
2008
72 Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
Study
Bl Boundaries
Findings
Type of
learning
outcomes
measured
Primary Studies
Type of Study
years analyzed
3
Zhao &
Breslow
(2013)
ol =
30%–80%; f2f
= 70%–20%
mixed evidence
regarding whether
hybrid or Bl is more
effective
Quantitative indicator of
learning, in most cases
ds fo homwok,
quizzes, labs, exams, and
similar, in some cases
combined with student
satisfaction scores
42 Slr 1999–
2013
4
rowe,
Frantz,
&
Bozlk
(2012)
meaningful
integration
Bl shows some
measure of
improvement, but
clms dfcult to
mk
Pre- and post-tests,
interviews, focus groups,
suys, ct blo
posts, etc.
14 Slr 2000–
2012
5landers
(2009)
ol =
30%–80%; f2f
= 70%–20%
Bl appears superior to
traditional courses but
examinations of the
effect of the degree
to which a course is
ol dfcult du
to small cell sizes
knowledge, observable
sklls, poblm-sol
sklls, tttuds,
perceptions, e.g.,
multiple-choice tests,
computer use tests,
self-reported learning
outcomes
126
ma 1991–
2009
6
Sitzmann
et al.
(2006)
Mostly f2f
with ol
enhancement
Bl was more effective
th f2f. effct o
dclt kowld:
d=0.34, k=33;
effect on procedural
kowld: d=
0.52, k=6; effct o
reactions: d=–.15,
k=11
Dclt kowld,
pocdul kowld
assessed by either
participating in activity or
tk wtt tst
96 ma 1996–
2005
Table 2 (Cont.) Summary of Systematic Analyses and Meta-Analyses of Blended Learning
73
Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
Study
Bl Boundaries
Findings
Type of
learning
outcomes
measured
Primary Studies
Type of Study
years analyzed
7
Zhao
et al.
(2005)
as De wth f2f
enhancement
as moderating
variable,
or how
frequently
technology
was used
De mixed with a
ct mout of f2f
instruction seems to
be most effective.
media involvement of
60–80%: d=0.49, k=18,
p<.001
Grades, quizzes,
dpdt/stddzd
tests, students
satisfaction, faculty
satisfaction, dropout
rate, student evaluation
of learning, student
evaluation of the course,
external evaluation, and
cost effectiveness
52 ma 1966–
2002
8Paul
(2001)
Mostly f2f
with ol
enhancement
f2f wth ol
hcmt ws 11%
mo ffct th f2f
oly; d=0.27
Pcptul sklls,
tllctul sklls,
moto sklls, tttuds,
tpsol sklls/
averaged across reactions
and learning criteria
15 ma 1980–
2000
Despite the near unanimous agreement about the effect of Bl, some scholars conclude
tht th xst dc s mxd, d tht th st-od studs usd mt-lyss
lck sttstcl cotol fo cofoud fctos (row t l., 2012; Zho & Bslow, 2013). BL
tends to involve additional time, instructional resources, and course elements encouraging
interaction among learners, and either of these could serve as a confounding variable ex-
pl why BL codtos h sctly hh ffct o chmt s (Js
& Bly, 2010; Lds, 2009; Ms t l., 2013). i oth wods, lthouh th ffcts
of BL stucto c b s, th ssmt of cuslty s f mo dfcult to sct
(row t l., 2012).
glzblty of th ds BL ffctss sch s poblmtc du to th lck
of consistency across the primary studies from which the datasets for meta-analyses are
dw. Fst, th pmy studs lck cosstcy wht compss BL stuctol co-
Table 2 (Cont.) Summary of Systematic Analyses and Meta-Analyses of Blended Learning
74 Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
ditions. The commonality between contexts in Bl research is the presence of two modes,
but such bod dto mbcs pctcs too ds d d tsty to b
plctd wthout mo dtld spcctos. Scod, th pmy sch s cout
d wht costtuts academic achievement. Some meta-analyses and systematic
reviews included a diverse set of academic achievement measurements, e.g., standardized
test scores, researcher-made and teacher-made tests, attitude measures and inventories,
xpssos of stsfcto, skll lutos, lutos of th cous s whol, s wll
s tto outcoms (.., Zho t l., 2005). Oth schs look t th pmy
studs dtd whth studt l sultd dclt o pocdul kowld
(Stzm, K, Stwt, & Wsh, 2006), o th l of fcts o poblm sol sklls
(Lds, 2009). rct mt-lyss d systmtc lttu ws td to sttl o
exclusively quantitative measures of academic achievement (Ms t l., 2013), whch do
ot cssly pst mful outcoms (ross & Moso, 2014). Sc compso
of academic achievement between different instructional conditions is the foundation for
demonstrating the positive impact of Bl, the diversity of meanings of academic achievement
futh cofouds th pottl fo lz th sch ds.
To conclude, Bl effectiveness studies support the premise that students who learn from
th combto of ol d f2f mods dlop btt l outcoms th th
peers exposed to either of the modes exclusively. although the research speculates that
BL combs th “bst of two wolds,” studs of ffctss lck cosstcy wht
constitutes Bl environments, and what outcomes are being compared. Thus, the research
offs lmtd dc s to wht spcts of BL pdoy o tcholoy uc l
outcoms (abuh, 2014; Tos-Stl & Dw, 2013).
instructional Practices and Technology that impact Bl
another prominent theme in the reviewed research focuses on instructional practices per-
cd s fobl fo BL mods. Th dscusso blow s stuctud to ct wht th
research has reported in relation to the following:
i. Use of technology in BL
ii. Pedagogical considerations for instruction within online and f2f modes,
as well as across the two
v. Design of BL courses
vi. Gaps in research on instructional practices
75
Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
There is a difference in how the researchers cited in this section have established evidence
fo “bst” pctcs. Fo xmpl, som pctcs h b smply commdd by -
structors with their experiences and recommendations summarized in systematic reviews.
alternatively, other evidence has been statistically derived from meta-analyses that identify
the value of instructional interventions in relation to academic achievement.
The Use of Technology
it is to be expected that the themes of technology and pedagogy would have a strong
presence in the Bl research. The tension between technology and pedagogy has a long-
std hstoy, sc Clk (1983) chlld th oto tht tcholoy-s-s hs
ffct o l. Clk ud tht th stuctol pctc, ot th mdum of dly,
ultmtly ucs th l pocss. rsch dmostts tht us tcholoy
in Bl for communication, for presentation, for searching, and so on, has varying effects on
cdmc chmt. Mo spcclly, tcholoy usd to pod cot suppot
has a much higher moderating effect on achievement in Bl (g+=0.59) than technology
podd fo cott/psttol suppot (g+=0.24) or technology used to facilitate
communication among peers and with the instructor (g+=0.31) (Bd t l., 2014;
Schmd t l., 2014). as otd by Bd t l. (2014), lthouh ths ds sm to
chll th utlty of tcholoy, such coclusos t ths st would b supcl.
These results do suggest, however, that technological tools have varying power. Therefore,
treating technological tools as the one and only intervention condition in research may
ld to o-lz th dfft ffodcs tht h pottl to uc studt
l. i cocluso, ths ds suppot th stdpot of Clk’s oppots who
did not necessarily disagree as to the importance of instructional choices in enhancing the
learning outcomes in technology-facilitated interventions, but argued for a more inclusive
dto of such ttos tht would ct th mpotc of both th tcholoy
choc d th stuctol pctc (H & You, 2008).
i ddto to th studs slctd fo th sythss, mt-lyss by Schmd t l. (2014)
investigated the impact of how much technology is used within the Bl provision. They found
tht studts f2f clssooms wh tcholoy s usd t low o mdum tsty ll
outperform students in a predominantly technology-based classroom (i.e., high intensity).
Smlly, Bd t l. (2014) sttd whth spd low-to-modt mout
of tm th BL ol mod (up to 30% wth t lst 50% f2f) hs mpct o cdmc
achievement when compared to students spending longer periods in the online mode (ap-
poch 50% wth 50% f2f). Th sults ot sttstclly sct, d dct tht
76 Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
couss wh t lst 50% of th clss s f2f mod, studts who spd mo tm
the online mode outperform those whose exposure to the online mode is shorter. a similar
td ws otd by Ms t l. (2013). Tht sd, th mt-lyss udtk by Schmd
t l. (2014) susts tht dffcs th mpct of th tsty of tcholoy my b
ucd by th subjct mtt of th cous tslf. at ths pot, bsds suppot th
stdpot tht tcholoy s pott lmt th ductol stt, such ds
dfcult to ply to wll-dd pctcl mplctos tht c fom th ds of
Bl courses.
BL sch phps pods oly tl sht to th pottl mpct of spcc tch-
olocl ttos, d sold coclusos s yt dfcult to mk. as Mcg d
rs (2012) pot out th systmtc w of bst pctcs, th s o mt
even when it comes to the question of whether having an lmS is a mandatory component
for Bl let alone what components of technology or the balance of time allocated for tech-
nology-mediated learning will best facilitate student outcomes.
instructional Practices
meta-analyses of the effectiveness of Bl also include various factors related to instructional
practices and their moderating effect on academic achievement. For instance, means et
l. (2013) pod sttstclly dd dc tht th pdocl ppochs usd
in Bl can have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Their meta-analysis
ttd 12 stuctol pctcs s modt bls3. Th schs dtd
the effects that instructional practices, i.e., instructor-directed (expository), independent
(active), and collaborative (interactive), have on academic achievement. From these analyses,
the authors demonstrate that effect sizes of collaborative interactive learning (g+=0.249)
3 Means et al. (2013) included the following pedagogical practices as moderator variables: pedagogy/learning experience contrasting in-
structor-directed (expository) with independent (active) and collaborative (interactive); computer-mediated communication with instructor
contrasting asynchronous only with a combination of asynchronous and synchronous; treatment duration contrasting less that 1 month
with more than 1 month; media features contrasting text-based only with the combination of text and other media; time on task contrasting
provisions where students spent longer time online than f2f, with courses where the f2f part of the course was greater than the online part; a
condition comparing the presence or absence of one-way video or audio; a condition comparing the presence or absence of computer-based
instruction elements; a condition comparing whether the students had an opportunity for f2f time with instructor during the instruction,
before or aer the instruction, or none at all; a condition that compared whether the students had an opportunity to interact with peers during
the instruction, before or aer the instruction, or not at all; a condition examining whether the students had an opportunity to practice, or
not; and the condition comparing whether the feedback was or was not provided.
77
Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
and teacher-directed instruction (g+=0.386) on academic achievement are higher than the
effect of self-paced independent learning (g+=0.05) (Ms t l., 2013).
Bd t l. (2014) lso ttd stuctol-ltd fctos s modt bls. Thy
focused, however, on the types of interactions students had in Bl provisions, and included
th th typs of tctos — studt-studt, studt-tch d studt-cott, s
interaction treatments in the meta-analysis of Bl effectiveness. Since it was not the focus
of the study, they did not establish the impact of the exact combinations of the three inter-
cto typs upo studt l outcoms. How, th ds do sust tht th
presence of two or three types of interaction yields a higher effect than only one (g+=0.44
fo two typs of tcto; g+=0.47 fo th typs; g+=0.26 for one type).
Prior research into ol further adds to our understanding of the combinations of interactions
that have more impact on academic achievement in the online modes of Bl provision. ol
meta-analyses have demonstrated the impact of student-student and student-content
interactions, as well as student-teacher and student-content interactions (for further ref-
c, s Joksmo t l. (2015) ths ss of pps). Futhmo, th ffcts of
the combinations of interaction types in Bl support the interaction equivalency theorem
(adso, 2003). adso’s hypothszs tht OL hh lls of mo th o typ
of tcto “wll lkly pod mo stsfy ductol xpc, thouh ths
experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences” (p.
4). This research highlights the close relationship of Bl to the dominant pedagogies in ol
and De, where interactions are seen as the means of bridging the psychological distance
btw th ptcpts th l pocss (Moo, 1989, 1993).
rcommdd stuctol pctcs fo BL mo ffct pctcs wth f2f d ol
modes respectively. For example, there has been strong evidence of the essential role that
fdbck plys l fom f2f ducto sch (Htt & Tmply, 2007), s wll
s De/OL sch (Pul, 2001), d ductol tcholoy sch (azdo, 1993). as
xpctd, pompt fdbck s lso sustd pctc BL stts, ct OL/De
xpcs; commdd pctcs of BL lso clud ct l d d t-
ctty (Mcg & rs, 2012). O, ccod wth both f2f d OL stuctol pcpls,
l commdtos BL clud d cl cous objcts, whch th
foundation for the course activities, assignments, and assessments. The design of these
l ctts must ccout fo th spccts of f2f d ol mods. Tht b
said, literature on Bl pedagogy has tied itself more strongly to ol, with far fewer insights
tk fom f2f ducto sch (abuh, 2014).
78 Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
course Design
Clly, OL d f2f off ch ht fo th dly d ds of spcc lmts BL
provisions. however, there is more to Bl design than just mirroring existing practices. The
discussion around Bl is concerned with thoughtful and meaningful ways of combining the
two (gso & Kuk, 2004). Ths pt of BL cous ds s ot yt bsd o sufct
dc. Th chll of how to mx tss wh xst cous s -dsd
to bld. Fo stc, th study by ghm d robso (2007), o o-thd of
faculty reported having taught a Bl course. however, in the majority of these instances
the teaching and learning practices did not change. instead the instructors simply added
small technology-based enhancements for accessing course content or communication
wth ps. as such, t s tmpt to “tslt” pctc tht xsts wth cous to
cospod tcholoy-bsd pctc (Slomo, 2002), but sch pods lttl
ssstc s to th typs of “tsltos” tht would b mful BL cotxts.
Ds ctts fo BL ols udstd th dffcs btw OL d f2f
modes. research indicates that different modes of learning are best suited for achieving
particular learning outcomes. For example, effectively designed ol facilitates the develop-
mt of fctul d dclt kowld (Lds, 2009; row t l., 2012; Stzm t
l., 2006), whl poblm-bsd f2f l hs post ffct o sklls, d t
ffct o kowld (Dochy, Ss, v d Bossch, & gjbls, 2003; gjbls, Dochy, v
d Bossch, & Ss, 2005). Th pms tht dfft stuctol mods sutd fo
dfft tsks s futh comd by studs tht show tht th sm mout of tm spt
o tsk wll mpct th l outcom th OL mod, but wll ot h compbl
mpct th f2f stt (Ms t l., 2013).
Since computer-mediated communication with the instructor and among students asyn-
chronously tends to have higher effect when used in combination with synchronous mode
(Bd t l., 2004), sch d pctc commd tht studts d th stucto
cy o th costos coss both th ol d f2f mods (Stcy & gbc, 2009).
Such continuous conversations allow for leveraging the convenience and deeper levels of
sychoous dscusso (Bd t l., 2004; Bok & ghm, 2006; Hstsk & Kll,
2007) wth th pottl fo sto ss of commuty both wb-bsd d f2f
sychoous commucto (ro & Jod, 2004).
in contrast with recommendations on how to mix student-student and student-instructor
tctos, th lttu wd lcks dc d th bld of studt-cott
tctos (Hlms, 2014). H th cocpt of th ipped classroom (Fc) becomes rele-
79
Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
vant. The Fc regained popularity as institutions began developing scaled online courses
for external non-fee-paying students (e.g., moocs). in essence, institutions sought a
better way to recoup the costs of such courses through greater integration of the new
online resources into the established fee-based course offerings (Bruff, Fisher, mcewen, &
Smth, 2013). FC s spcc cous ds tht combs f2f tct oup l
activities with web-based components taught at distance, such as lectures, close-ended
quizzes, and practice exercises. a systematic review of Fc initiatives by Bishop & verleger
(2013) ttmpts to lut ths pctc. Th sults dct tht most pmy studs
use single-group study design, providing no point of comparison for learning outcomes.
accod to Bshop d vl (2013), th dc tht FC outpfoms th tdtol
clssoom s cdotl, d lttl wok us cotolld xpmtl o qus-xpmtl
designs actually investigates what they call objective learning outcomes.
Mcg d rs (2012) off xhust sythss of bst pctcs potd by BL pc-
titioners in primary studies, including strategies and techniques related to course design,
pedagogy, implementation, and assessment. They recommend that Bl provisions be de-
sd, th th dsd fom f2f modls, d tht cous compots b ld,
especially regarding assessment practices. They also highlight that although student-stu-
dent and student-teacher interactions are reported to enhance learning outcomes, in Bl
provisions, that is not always the expectation, and sometimes instructors are not willing or
are incapable of continuous interaction. as a result, the alignment of expectations between
instructors and students in Bl courses is of utmost importance.
learner Support
although student perceptions and perspectives on Bl are among the most prominent
themes addressed in Bl primary research, we were unable to identify a systematized review
of this topic. The available meta-analyses suggest differences as to the characteristics of
th studts who pf d/o bt fom BL posos. Fo stc, Lds (2009)
found that older students seem to prefer the ol mode. Students in undergraduate-level Bl
couss lso td to outpfom thos t th dut ll (Bd t l., 2014; Ms
t l., 2009, 2013). Futhmo, ls otd towds fomto d ds pp
to b mo stsd wth th ol compots of BL, whl thos mo popl d fl-
s otd showd hh stsfcto wth f2f compots (akkoyulu & Ylmz-Soylu,
2008). Dspt ths tds b otd two ct BL mt-lyss, ths ds
sttstclly sct.
80 Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
a common thread across Bl studies is that, regardless of the type of learner, extra atten-
tion should be paid to developing additional student support to reduce the dependence
o th tch d to ssst wth slf-ultd l sklls (Bd t l., 2014; Bok
& ghm, 2006; Mcg & rs, 2012; Schmd t l., 2014; Tos-Stl & Dw, 2013).
assessment in Bl
Oly 2.36% of ll tcls o BL hh ducto, dxd th Wb of Scc, d-
dssd th topc of ssssmt (Tos-Stl & Dw, 2013). Cosqutly, commd-
tions related to assessment in Bl practices are limited. in their synthesis of best practices,
Mcg d rs (2012) pot tht pcttos pf BL ssssmt to b coductd
online, along with traditional assessments such as quizzes, exams, and essays. They also
ckowld th tst lut pojcts, thdd dscussos, d psttos, s
well as assessing groups in collaborative contributions rather than individuals. mcGee and
rs (2012) ot tht f BL ssssmt s coductd th f2f fomt, th t lso tds to
b tdtol, .., l xms, tm pps, d so o. i cocluso, th uthos com
that the minimal presence of assessment in Bl research is puzzling. They also point out
that such conservative focus of Bl assessment seems to mismatch the diversity of learning
activities promoted by Bl practitioners.
instructor’s role in Bl
Besides assessment, a further under-represented theme in the research relates to the role
of the instructor (or teacher). Two meta-analyses reported the rather obvious fact that the
tch’s ol hs sct uc o studt l outcoms. Fo xmpl, th
sults of th De mt-lyss, Zho t l. (2005) potd tht wh stucto olmt
s low, th outcoms of De ot s post s thos of fully f2f clsss. How, wh
stucto olmt De s t ts hhst, l outcoms show sctly btt
ffct th thos of f2f. Smlly, Ms t l. (2013) showd th sctly hh ffct tht
instructor-directed (expository) instructional practices can have on academic achievement
(g+=0.386). althouh, s potd out by ghm (2013), th of ths studs ctully
dtd th spcts of stucto olmt tht fclttd studt l.
althouh th mt-lyss d systmtc ws lck dtl o th typs of stucto
involvement that improve student outcomes, further insight can be gained from primary
sch studs. Fo stc, Sh d Bdjo (2013) dmostt tht studts BL
81
Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
courses report much higher levels of instructional design, facilitation of productive discourse,
d dct stucto — ll lmts of tch psc (gso, adso, & ach,
2001). Th uthos u tht ths studt pcpto my xpl th hh ffct szs
ltd to cdmc pfomc BL s compd to thos of OL o f2f. Po OL sch
has demonstrated that teaching presence can predict levels of social presence and that it
ucs cot psc.
The State of Bl research
a futh pomt thm lts to th stt of BL sch tslf. Tht s, udtk
spcc sch o how th ld s ol thouh fo xmpl th us of bblomtcs
d cott lyss. Fo stc, Hlso t l. (2012) lyzd hh-mpct schol-
shp th ld, w th most ctd tcls, books, uthos, d utl jouls.
Dysdl t l. (2013) lso coductd thmtc lyss of doctol dssttos, s wll
s thmtc lyss of th hh-mpct scholshp (Hlso t l., 2014). Tos-Stl
d Dw (2013) udtook sml tsk, w d thmtclly cod ll BL sch
on higher education indexed by the web of Science. in addition, Bliuc, Goodyear, and ellis
(2007) coductd w of mthodolocl chocs d sch focus studt xp-
cs of BL, whl abuh (2014) wd cdmc wok o BL mmt ducto.
Several of these systematic reviews report that the majority of primary research on Bl can
b clssd s how-to papers related to instructional design or best practices reported
through single-case experiences at the course, program, or faculty level of implementing
bldd cous (abuh, 2014; Hlso t l., 2014; Tos-Stl & Dw, 2013). Ths
is consistent with the reported dominant methodologies, i.e., the majority of research has
b dd fom “tchs s schs lyz th ow studts’ xpcs of
BL” (Bluc t l., 2007, p. 235). Such td llustts tht BL pctc hs pdomtly
b mplmtd “bottom-up” by ddul tchs th ow clssooms ds
to mpo studt l (Dysdl t l., 2013).
The authors of systematic reviews of the Bl research are consistent in their observations
d th stt of tht sch. Th s mt tht th ld of BL hs mtud
(abuh, 2014; Dysdl t l., 2013; Hlso t l., 2012) but stll hs dscoct
btw BL pctc d thoy (Dysdl t l., 2013). To dt, BL ls hly o OL
thos (abuh, 2014), s th hs b lttl scholly wok o th dlopmt of
w thos o modctos to stblshd thoy (Hlso t l., 2014). To ddss ths
dscocto, th s d fo thos tht c btt xpl th uc of bld
82 Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
pctcs o studt l (ghm, H, & gbbos, 2013).
rschs lso hhlht sct ps th cut sch. Fst, th ol of th
stucto s ot sufctly ddssd, o th stff o sttutol pspcts du to
th lck of fomto o pofssol dlopmt d BL sttutol polcy d dopto
(Dysdl t l., 2013; Hlso t l., 2014; Tos-Stl & Dw, 2013). Scod, both
stt-of-th-ld ws d mt-lyss tht ddss th coc of tcholoy
wth f2f cotxts sust tht futu dctos fo sch clud stt bldd
stuctol pctcs, spcclly th ltoshp to studt motto d mt,
wth ptcul focus o th studt chctstcs tht bt most fom st dss.
Finally, suggestions for further research include investigating the role of learner choice and
slf-ultd l (Bd t l., 2014; Dysdl t l., 2013; ghm, 2006; Ms
t l., 2013).
institutional adoption
Oly o systmtc w o th ssu of BL dopto, by Shp, Bld, robts,
& Fcs (2006), ws foud ou sch of th lttu. Ths w dos ot fully fll
ud th bod dto of BL doptd fo ths sythss, s t dls wth th dopto
of LMS/vLe-suppotd f2f clssooms (xclud thos comb ol d f2f mods).
however, the Sharpe et al. study is highly relevant as it highlights the approaches and
pocsss tht h pomotd BL dopto. Mo spcclly, Shp t l. obsd tht
mjo dt of dopt BL hs b ts mbuous dto, “whch llows stff
to negotiate their own meaning” (p. 4). in line with that, Picciano, Dziuban, & Graham
(2013) obs tht th o lbl stmts of th umb of studts olld
Bl. essentially, faculty are not fully cognizant of when they are, or are not, teaching in Bl
fomt. Futhmo, colls d usts do ot dly kp cods of fculty who
tch bldd couss (Pcco t l., 2013).
Bsds th l lck of studs w dopto xpcs, o studs w d-
td tht lysd th ous pots d modls ltd to th cost-ffctss of BL.
althouh, ghm (2013) hs ctly otd tht cost-ffctss s obous tol
driving institutions to adopt Bl. he reviewed positive experiences of return on investment
reported throughout both corporate (e.g., iBm, intel) and higher educational contexts
(e.g., University of central Florida). corporations list such factors as reduction in wait times
for training, reduction in training hours and associated salary expenses, and reduction in
t costs to b lt fo cost-ffctss (ghm, 2013).
83
Conclusions and Implications for Research and Practice
the history and state of blended learning
conclUSionS
anD imPlicaTionS
For reSearch
anD PracTice
Ths pot pstd sythss of th thms d ds fom som 20 mt-lyss
d systmtc studs to off dc-bsd pspct o th pctcs kow s
Bldd L — combto of f2f d wb-bsd, tcholoy-mdtd ductol
contexts. Studies investigating Bl have evolved from grassroots practice into a maturing
sch ld. Ths s wll dcd th ch dtos, ow umb of doctol
dssttos, d xpd costos pstly tk plc th pmy sch.
Ths tsfomto of th BL ld hs b fuld by pd dcs tcholoy, fcl-
tt OL stucto tht mos th popts of f2f cotxts, thus bl th pd
convergence of these instructional modalities.
Dspt th dlopmt of BL, ts cut dpdc o ts “pt” mods of dly s
ompst y thm sythszd ths pot. Fst, ds fom th ffctss
studs coclud tht comb f2f d ol mods of dly hs hh ffct o
student academic achievement than either one of the modes independently. however, so
far there is limited evidence as to what particular methods of blending impacts academic
achievement. Second, recommended instructional practices mirror existing best practices
dlopd wth OL d f2f mods, wth hy lc o OL/De. Cous (-)ds
mts ts focus o ppochs tht hlp cptlz o th pcd bts fom ths
separate modes of delivery, e.g., the enhanced social presence and relationship building
thouh f2f mods (ro & Jod, 2004; Sh & Bdjo, 2013), d th l cotol
d th xblty of ccss thouh ol mods (ghm, 2013). Thd, th sch ld
ls hly o cocpts dlopd OL/De whl lck ts ow thos to ddss
blending itself. consequently, despite the abundance of individual accounts of blended
xpcs, th s lck of mpcl sch tht would fd bck to th bl-
d-spcc thotcl lss.
84 Conclusions and Implications for Research and Practice
the history and state of blended learning
Such dpdc o th two dly mods (f2f/OL) fom whch BL md, sults
little evidence about the actual blending — ds st of pctcs wth th pottl
to overgrow its status of a combined delivery mode to become an effective pedagogical
method. while the choices behind pedagogy are highly related to how the process of
learning unfolds, there is actually little evidence about learning in Bl practices. Despite
their complex and nuanced research design, recent Bl effectiveness studies fall under
th ctoy of “sufc l sch” (ross & Moso, 2014), s thy fl to show
the effect of various types of learning while maintaining focus on academic achievement
and performance. Furthermore, instructional practices barely address student-content
interactions, and the role of teacher has been mostly neglected. Finally, research does
ot udtk thos tht systclly ut th l tht tks plc coss th
physical and the virtual.
Bl research has provided some evidence that certain types of technology are more con-
duc to poduc hh msud l outcoms, whch bs th mdum bck
to th costo bout l d pdoy (Clk, 1983; Kozm, 1991, 1994).
moreover, the development of technological affordances and technological ubiquity in some
parts of the world suggest that technology can help extend informal learning processes,
both socially and cognitively. in other words, besides bridging the psychological distance
between the separated participants in the learning process, despite their perceived prox-
mty (Thompso, 2007), pdocl ctts mdtd by tcholoy d to t wht
that technology can afford.
in sum, based on the evidence synthesized in this report, we argue that deeper insights
d focus o dtl l — .., l mdtd by ous tcholocl mthods of
tscd physcl d tul spc — would llow pcttos of BL to mk btt
pedagogical choices. in addition, a more detailed reporting of Bl practices, both by ad-
ministrators and researchers, will aid our understanding of the nuances of Bl beyond that
of a combined delivery mode. last, the focus on the interplay between learning-processes
and technological affordances would allow researchers of Bl to reframe their inquiries in a
wy tht lds to futh mtuto of th ld.
85
References
the history and state of blended learning
reFerenceS
akkoyulu, B., & Ylmz-Soylu, M. (2008). a study of studt’s pcptos bldd
learning environment based on different learning styles. Educational Technology
& Society, 11(1), 183–193.
all, C. (2004). Lf wth lcty: Tc th oluto of socl softw. rtd fom
http://www.ctulk.o/oup/1218/tcl/1613220
all, i. e., & Sm, J. (2003). Sz th oppotuty: The quality and extent of online
education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Sloan consortium. retrieved from
http://c.d.o/?d=eD530060
all, i. e., & Sm, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online
education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. eriC. rtd fom http://c.
d.o/?d=eD530061
all, i. e., & Sm, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education
in the United States. Slo Cosotum. PO Box 1238, nwbuypot, Ma 09150.
all, i. e., Sm, J., & gtt, r. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of
blended education in the United States. eriC. rtd fom http://c.
d.o/?d=eD529930
adso, T. (2003). gtt th mx ht : a updtd d thotcl tol fo
interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
4(2). rtd fom http://www.odl.o/dx.php/odl/tcl/watcl/149
adso, T. (2008). Socl softw tcholos dstc ducto: Mxmz l
freedoms. in International Handbook of Distance Education, (pp. 167–184). emld
Group Publishing.
abuh, J. B. (2014). Wht mht ol dly tch us bout bldd mmt
education? Prior perspectives and future directions. Journal of Management
Education. do: 10.1177/1052562914534244
86 References
the history and state of blended learning
azevedo, r. (1993). A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-presented feedback on learning
from computer-based instruction. The Department of education, concordia University
Bd, r. M., abm, P. C., Bookhosk, e., Wd, C. a., Tmm, r. M., Suks, M. a.,
& Bthl, e. C. (2009). a mt-lyss of th typs of tcto ttmts
distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.
Bd, r. M., abm, P. C., Lou, Y., Bookhosk, e., Wd, a., Wozy, L., … Hu,
B. (2004). How dos dstc ducto comp wth clssoom stucto? a
meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3),
379–439. do:10:3102/0034654309333844
Bd, r. M., Bookhosk, e., Schmd, r. F., Tmm, r. M., & abm, P. C. (2014). a mt-
analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the
general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122.
do:10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
Bshop, J. L., & vl, M. a. (2013). Th ppd clssoom: a suy of th sch.
ASEE National Conference Proceedings. atlt, ga. rtd fom http://www.
studsuccsho.l/wp-cott/uplods/2014/04/ppd-clssoom-tkl.pdf
Bluc, a.-M., goody, P., & ells, r. a. (2007). rsch focus d mthodolocl chocs
in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231–244.
Bok, C.J., & ghm, C.r. (eds.)(2006). Hdbook of bldd l: Global perspectives,
local Designs. San Francisco, ca:Pfeiffer Publishing.
Buff, D. O., Fsh, D. H., Mcew, K. e., & Smth, B. e. (2013). Wpp MOOC:
Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. MERLOT Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187–199. rtd fom http://jolt.mlot.
o/ol9o2/buff_0613.pdf
Clk, r. e. (1983). rcosd sch o l fom md. Review of Educational
Research, 53(4), 445–459.
87
References
the history and state of blended learning
Cook, D. a., Lso, a. J., gsd, S., Dups, D. M., ew, P. J., & Moto, v. M. (2010).
instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions
education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Medicine, 85(5),
909–922.
Dochy, F., Ss, M., v d Bossch, P., & gjbls, D. (2003). effcts of poblm-bsd
learning: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.
Dysdl, J. S., ghm, C., Sp, K. J., & Hlso, L. r. (2013). a lyss of sch
trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and
Higher Education, 17, 90–100. do:10.1016/j.hduc.2012.11.003
gso, D. r., adso, T., & ach, W. (2001). Ctcl thk, cot psc,
and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education, 15(1), 7–23. do:10.1080/08923640109527071
gso, D. r., & Kuk, H. (2004). Bldd l: Uco ts tsfomt
potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
do:10.1016/j.hdu.2004.02.001
gjbls, D., Dochy, F., v d Bossch, P., & Ss, M. (2005). effcts of poblm-bsd
learning: a meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational
Research, 75(1), 27–61. do: 10.3102/00346543075001027
gkd, J. W., Moow, D., & Ds, n. e. (2011). Ol fomt ssssmt hh
education: a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.
do:10.1016/j.compdu.2011.06.004
ghm, C. (2013). em pctc d sch bldd l. Handbook of
Distance Education, 333–350.
ghm, C. (2006). Bldd l systms. CJ Bok & Cr ghm, The handbook of
blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer.
ghm, C., & Dzub, C. (2008). Bldd l omts. i J. M. Spcto, M.
D. Mll, J. el, & M. J. Bshop (eds.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology. Sp. rtd fom http://lk.sp.
com/cott/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5.pdf
88 References
the history and state of blended learning
ghm, C., H, C. r., & gbbos, a. S. (2013). Dlop modls d thoy fo bldd
learning research. in Blended Learning: Research Perspectives (Vol.2). routledge.
ghm, C., & robso, r. (2007). rlz th tsfomtol pottl of bldd
learning: comparing cases of transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher
education. Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, 83–110.
Hlso, L. r., ghm, C., Sp, K. J., & Dysdl, J. S. (2012). a lyss of hh mpct
scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Education, 33(3),
381–413. do:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166
Hlso, L. r., ghm, C., Sp, K. J., Dysdl, J. S., & H, C. r. (2014). a
thmtc lyss of th most hhly ctd scholshp th st dcd of bldd
learning research. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20–34. do:10.1016/j.
hduc.2013.09.004
H, r. D., & You, M. (2008). rsch o ductol tcholos. i M. Spcto,
M. D. Mll, J. v. Mbo, & M. Dscoll (eds.), Handbook of Educational
Communications and Technology (3d d., pp. 731–739). nw Yok: routld.
Htt, J., & Tmply, H. (2007). Th pow of fdbck. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81–112. do: 10.3102/003465430298487
Hlms, S. a. (2014). Bldd/hybd couss: w of th lttu d commdtos
for instructional designers and educators. Interactive Learning Environments, 22
(6), 80-810. do:10.1080/10494820.2012.745420
Hstsk, S., & Kll, C. (2007). Comput-mdtd commucto ducto: a
review of recent research. Educational Media International, 44(1), 61–77. do:
10.1080/09523980600922746
Hulsm, T. (2004). Th two-pod ttck o l suppot: Costs d ctful focs
of convergence. in Supporting the Learner in Distance Education and E-Learning:
Proceedings of the Third EDEN Research Workshop, Oldenburg: Bibliotheks-und
Information system der Universitat Oldenburg, pp. 498–504.
89
References
the history and state of blended learning
Js, S., & Bly, T. r. (2010). effctss of fully ol couss fo coll studts:
rspos to Dptmt of educto mt-lyss. rtd fom http://
cdmccommos.columb.du/tm/c:172120
Kw, J., & K, J.-J. (2013). a w of mpcl sch o bldd l
teacher education programs. Education and Information Technologies, 18(3),
479–493. do: 10.1007/s10639-011-9182-8
kozma, r. B. (1991). learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.
do: 10.3102/00346543061002179
Kozm, r. B. (1994). Wll md uc l? rfm th dbt. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19. do: 10.1007/BF0229908
Lds, r. n. (2009). Traditional, web-based, and hybrid instruction: A comparison of
training methods. Usty of Msot. rtd fom http://coscy.
um.du/hdl/11299/52260
Mcg, P., & rs, a. (2012). Bldd cous ds: a sythss of bst pctcs. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.
Ms, B., Toym, Y., Muphy, r., Bk, M., & Jos, K. (2009). eluto of dc-bsd
practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
US Department of Education. rtd fom http://c.d.o/?d=eD505824
Ms, B., Toym, Y., Muphy, r., & Bk, M. (2013). Th ffctss of ol d
blended learning: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College
Record, 115(3), 1–47.
Moo, M. g. (1989). edtol: Th typs of tcto. rtd fom http://www.
tdfol.com/do/pdf/10.1080/08923648909526659
moore, m. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. in D. keegan (ed.), Theoretical
principles of distance education (p.22-38). Lodo: routld.
Moo, M. g., & Ksly, g. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online
learning. C L. rtd fom https://books.ool.com.u/
books?d=dU8KaaaaQBaJ
90 References
the history and state of blended learning
Pul, D. S. (2001). A meta-analytic review of factors that inuence the effectiveness of
Web-based training within the context of distance learning. Texas a&m University.
Pcco, a. g., Dzub, C. D., & ghm, C. (2013). rsch Pspcts. i Blended
Learning: Research Perspectives (Vol.2). routledge.
r, L. (2010). itt, bodbd, d cll pho sttstcs. Pew Internet & American
Life Project, 5. rtd fom http://www.dstbutdwokplc.com/DW/rsch/
itt%20bodbd%20d%20cll%20pho%20sttstcs%20-%20Pw%20
itt%20rpot%20J%202010.pdf
ross, S. M., Moso, g. r., & Lowth, D. L. (2010). eductol tcholoy sch pst
and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35. rtd fom http://ultul..cuds.
du.co/publco/lms/L.000.002.Mg/Documtos/axos/Cp3/1.pdf
ross, S. M., & Moso, J. r. (2014). Msu mful outcoms cosqutl
contexts: Searching for a happy medium in educational technology research
(Phase ii). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 4–21. do: 10.1007/
s12528-013-9074-6
ro, a. P., & Jod, H. (2004). Bldd l d ss of commuty: a compt
analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). rtd fom http://www.odl.
o/dx.php/odl/tcl/watcl/192
row, M., Ftz, J., & Bozlk, v. (2012). Th ol of bldd l th clcl
education of healthcare students: a systematic review. Medical Teacher, 34(4),
216–221. do: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.642831
Slomo, g. (2002). Tcholoy d pdoy: Why do’t w s th pomsd oluto?
Educational Technology, 42(2), 71–75.
Schmd, r. F., Bd, r. M., Bookhosk, e., Tmm, r. M., abm, P. C., Suks, M. a.,
… Woods, J. (2014). Th ffcts of tcholoy us postscody ducto:
a meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271–291.
do: 10.1016/j.compdu.2013.11.002
91
References
the history and state of blended learning
Shp, r., Bld, g., robts, g., & Fcs, r. (2006). The undergraduate experience
of blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. higher education
acdmy Lodo. rtd fom http://www.slmcstudstwok.c.uk/ssts/
ws%20Yok%20-%20dlt%20ths%20soo/documts/ouwok/ch/
bldd_l_full_w.pdf
Sh, P., & Bdjo, T. (2013). Udstd dstctos l hybd, d ol
omts: a mpcl stto of th commuty of quy fmwok.
Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355–370. do:10.1080/10494820.2011
.584320
Stzm, T., K, K., Stwt, D., & Wsh, r. (2006). Th compt ffctss
of web-based and classroom instruction: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology,
59(3), 623–664. do: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x
Stcy, e., & gbc, P. (2009). itoducto to bldd l pctcs. i Stcy, e.
(ed.) Effective Blended Learning Practices: Evidence-Based Perspectives in ICT-
Facilitated Education. iGi Global.
Thompso, M.M. (2007). Fom dstc ducto to -l. i r. adws & C.
haythornthwaite (eds.). SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp.159-178).
london: Sage Publications ltd.
Tos-Stl, g., & Dw, S. (2013). Th lttu ldscp of bldd l
higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended
practice. international Journal for Academic Development, 18(4), 371–383. do:
10.1080/1360144X.2013.786720
Tw, C. a. (2003). nw modls fo ol l: impo l d duc costs
EDUCAUSE review, 38 (5), 28–38. rtd fom: http://www.ducus.du//
lby/pdf/m0352.pdf
Zho, Y., & Bslow, L. (2013). Lttu w o hybd/bldd l. rtd
fom http://tll.mt.du/sts/dfult/ls/lby/Bldd_L_Lt_rw.pdf
Zho, Y., L, J., Y, B., & T, S. (2005). Wht mks th dffc? a pctcl lyss
of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teacher’s College Record,
107, 1836–1884.