The history and state of blended learning

Abstract

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) traditional face-to-face (f2f) learning with online learning (OL). as the concept of BL continues to gain traction in educational settings, researchers are attempting to establish and verify the learning gains it brings. This report seeks to outline the debate regarding BL definitions, pedagogical benefits, and deficiencies that arise in academic studies, and reflect on the future direction for BL. Our critical overview of the state and development of BL is structured to reflect the dominant themes of twenty systematically selected second-order academic studies of BL. This report reviews main findings around such dominant themes as the effectiveness of BL, recommended instructional practices in BL delivery and design, as well as the state of research into BL. The findings suggest that advances in technology have fueled the development of BL from a grassroots practice to an emerging research field. The implementation of BL practices by including both online and f2f modes of delivery positively influence student performance, making BL an attractive educational provision. at present, the field of BL is still dependent on the modes of delivery it is derived from, drawing heavily on OL in both theory and in practice. The field of BL is a dynamically changing area, and much of the critique of the existing research noted here is likely to be rapidly addressed in future work. That being said, a critical overview of the field suggests that it can further mature by adopting a digital learning perspective in its own activities.

Full text

The hiSTory anD STaTe
oF BlenDeD learninG
olekSanDra SkryPnyk
University of South australia
SreKO 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) tdtol fc-to-fc (f2f) l wth ol
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
sks to outl th dbt d BL dtos, pd-
ocl bts, d dccs tht s  cdmc
studs, d ct o th futu dcto fo BL. Ou ctcl
overview of the state and development of Bl is structured
to ct th domt thms of twty systmtclly
selected second-order academic studies of Bl. This report
ws m ds oud such domt thms s th
effectiveness of Bl, recommended instructional practices in
Bl delivery and design, as well as the state of research into
BL. Th ds sust tht dcs  tcholoy h
fueled the development of Bl from a grassroots practice
to  m sch ld. Th mplmtto of BL
pctcs by clud both ol d f2f mods of dly
postly uc studt pfomc, mk BL  t-
tct ductol poso. at pst, 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  dymclly ch , d much of th
ctqu of th xst sch otd h s lkly to b
pdly ddssd  futu wok. Tht b sd,  ctcl
ow of th ld susts tht t c futh mtu 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-cmpus stucto pstd  cotol bck 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
my h compt dmds d pots tht mk
ully schduld o-cmpus ttdc dfcult, f ot
impossible.
in contrast, distance education (De) represents a model that
ffods studts  oppotuty to udtk poms 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  ct toducto to th scto; De hs  lo
history that evolved from specialist colleges and boutique
poms d couss (s Koo t l. (2015)  ths
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 wok dults o ml oups sptd by both tm d spc (Moo & Ks-
ly, 2011). How, th ct owth d sophstcto of itt-bsd tcholos
has seen distance education or online learning (ol) become a staple of post-secondary
d scody stucto. Ths s wll otd by all d Sm (2013), who h b
tck ol cous olmt coss th Utd Stts fo o  dcd. Th uthos
dtd tht th pct owth  olmt fo ol l couss 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 ducto modls (De d f2f clsss). at pst, couss d poms c b
offd wth xblty fo ccss d ttdc whl t oppotuts fo socl
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 dtos, lo wth
th pcd pdocl bts d dccs tht s thouh th coc of
tcholos wth f2f ducto s documtd  th xst sch lttu.

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
offs both  th f2f d dstc ducto stts. Tcholoy fo l c b
divided into three broad categories: i) information technologies that support the delivery of
d ccss to fomto; ) commucto d tct tcholos tht mdt us
tcto; d ) socl softw tcholos tht suppot oup-bsd ctts such s
dcso-mk, pl, d hh od l ctts (C. all, 2004; adso,
2008; Hulsm, 2004). Whl th tl fomto tcholos doptd  ducto 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 mmt systms (LMS) o tul l omts (vLe). Wb 2.0 tools
d socl softw tcholos (C. all, 2004) h bld two-wy commucto, s
wll s sh, xtct, d oz kowld, lo wth buld socl ltoshps
(adso, 2008). Du to th ffodcs fo tctty, socl softw tcholos llow
distance learners to be exposed to group-based learning activities previously perceived as
xclus to f2f tch cotxts. Fo xmpl, studts c commuct sychoously
through video conferencing, synchronous chat, or virtual classrooms without the need for
physcl co-locto (Hlms, 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
itt, d th dul low cost of tcholoy (r, 2010) h ll plyd  pt
 d l d tch pctc  th 21st ctuy.

61
Dening 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
tcholos d f2f stucto hs b dscbd  th lttu 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-
os wth f2f tch.
This report focuses on blended learning (BL), spcclly th pctcs tht comb (o
blend) tdtol f2f wth OL. BL o hybd pctcs pst  cotul coc
btw tdtol f2f d dstbutd, tcholoy-mdtd l omts
(Bok & ghm, 2006; ghm & Dzub, 2008). its c s  ch pctc c
b loctd o  cotuum btw fully f2f to fully ol couss (Hlms, 2014). g
ths bod spctum, t s ot sups tht BL hs multpl d d dtos. Fo
stc, BL c b dd s  so of OL, wh 30% – 79% of th cott s dl-
d   ol fomt (all & Sm, 2003, 2004; all, Sm, & gtt, 2007;
Ms, Toym, Muphy, Bk, & Jos, 2009; Ms, Toym, Muphy, & Bk, 2013).
Som schs lmt BL pctcs to thos wh f2f stucto compss t lst hlf of
ll clss tm (Bd, Bookhosk, Schmd, Tmm, & abm, 2014). Oths xpd BL
practices to include web-facilitated classroom instruction where the lmS is used for syllabi
d cous commucto (Bluc, goody, & ells, 2007). i oth wods, y stucto
who mploys tcholoy  hs/h tch pctc, whth  f2f o thouh wb-bsd
dstc ducto pctcs  ol ducto (De/OL), could ltmtly f to such
experiences as blended.

62 Dening Blended Learning
the history and state of blended learning
although the discussion in the literature regarding the development of an authoritative
dto s stll op, th  dtbl commolts  th my ttmpts to d
BL. i ll dtos, BL s cosdd  combto of tdtol f2f mods of stucto
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 tms  oft usd tchbly (ghm & Dzub, 2008; Ms t l., 2013).
aubly, hybd mpls tht o mod s uusd whl th oth s usd; whl bldd
susts o pcptbl dffc btw mods (Mcg & rs, 2012).
as the concept of Bl continues to gain traction in educational settings, researchers are also
ttmpt to stblsh d fy th toutd l s d bts ssoctd wth
ths modl of ducto. althouh tcholoy poststs fqutly spous sct
learning gains when adopting educational technologies, the realities of such claims are
oft dfcult to msu. Ths pot sks to hhlht th pcd bts losd
th potd dccs o ps s cutly potd  th sch.

63
Methods
the history and state of blended learning
meThoDS
Ths pot pods  ow of th stt of dc-bsd ds fo BL ppochs
by sythsz th thms d ds fom th mt-lyss d systmtc lttu
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 reected through these meta-analyses and systematic
literature reviews?
To identify meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews on Bl, a database search was
combd wth  gool Schol d joul sch (Fu 1). Fst,  lst of 306 studs
tht cludd OL, De, d BL ws dtd thouh  sch 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 schs scd ttls, kywods, d bstcts to
verify the relevance of each extracted article and to assign one or more labels to the list of
studs; spcclly 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
wd to pod futh dtl d clcto. Du ths st, 67 studs pottlly
lt fo BL w dtd.
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 inuential 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
Identied 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
oluto of BL complctd th dtcto of dly lbl mt-lyss d sys-
tematic reviews for inclusion in this report. For instance, on the one hand, especially in the
ly 2000s, BL ws td to tcholoy tto to cotol clssoom stucto
(S Fu 2). Th cdmc lttu  ths cs, cocts BL to such kywods s virtual
learning environments, course management systems, and computer-aided instruction,
mo oths. O th oth hd, BL lly olps wth th lttu o De/OL. i ths
cotxt, th cdmc lttu dws o such kywods 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 cludd  th l lst fo lyss,  study hd to mt th follow ct:
i. the study applied a systematic approach to literature analysis, e.g., meta-analysis,
systematic literature review, and meta-synthesis
ii. the study identied 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
addtolly, OL mt-lyss wth  sub-st of BL studs, such s Ms t l. (2009) o
Bd t l. (2009), w xcludd f th sm cdmc oup hd coductd  mo
recent and Bl-focused analysis using the dataset of primary studies that overlapped with
th po wok.
a lst of scod-od studs slctd fo ths pot compsd 20 mt-lyss 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
1Bd t l. (2014)
a meta-analysis of blended learning and
technology use in higher education: From
general to the applied
ma 96
2abuh, J.
(2014)
what might online delivery teach us about
blended management education? Prior
perspectives and future directions
Slr 60
3Hlso t l. (2014)
a thematic analysis of the most highly cited
scholshp  th st dcd of bldd
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 ppd clssoom: a suy of th
researchSlr 24
6Zho & Bslow (2013) Lttu w o hybd/bldd
learningSlr 42
7Dysdl 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 & rs (2012) Blended course design: a synthesis of best
practicesQma 67
11 rowe, Frantz, &
Bozlk (2012)
The role of blended learning in the clinical
education of healthcare students: a
systematic review
ma 14
12 Hlso t l. (2012) an analysis of high impact scholarship and
publication trends in blended learning Slr 95
13 gkd, Moow, &
Ds (2011)
online formative assessment in higher
education: a review of the literature Slr 8
14 Cook t l. (2010)
Wht do w kow bout wb-bsd
learning? a systematic review of the
variability of interventions
Slr 65
15 Lds (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, &
ells (2007)
research focus and methodological choices
in studies into students’ experiences of
blended learning in higher education
Slr approx.
300
17 Shp t l. (2006)
The undergraduate experience of blended
e-learning: a review of Uk literature and
practice
Slr & i 14
18 Stzm t l. (2006)
The comparative effectiveness of web-
based and classroom instruction: a meta-
analysis
ma 96*
19 Zho t l (2005)
Wht mks th dffc? a pctcl
analysis of research on the effectiveness of
distance education
ma 52*
20 Pul (2001)
a meta-analytic review of factors that
uc th ffctss of wb-bsd
training within the context of distance
education
ma 15
not: Sr: systmtc w; Ma: mt-lyss; SLr: systmtc lttu w; Ta: thmtc
lyss; QMa: qultt mt-lyss; i: tws. *Th smpl cludd both studs wth 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 dierent 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 dierent 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 dierent 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. Eectiveness 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-
tmtc w d to dw ttto to th lck of sch tht ffctly systmtzs
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 ttto tht th thms ctd  th scod-od studs do ot compltly
ct th domt thms of pmy sch  th ld (cf. Hlso t l., 2014).
effectiveness of Bl
Th ffctss of BL s compd to OL d f2f hs b  pomt thm  scho-
lly wok. Ths sch hs b of ptcul tst to polcymks d sttutol
dmsttos sk to udstd th pottl mpct o stmt o fo futh
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 hs to b mo cost-ffct (ghm, 2013; Ms 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 ddss th ffctss of BL w dtd (Tbl 2). Follow th tdto
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
sch ds (ross, Moso, & Lowth, 2010, p. 19).
essentially, all selected studies concluded that in situations where the students experienced
BL stucto, whth t ws   ol cous wth som ddtol f2f tm, o whth t
ws mostly  f2f cous wth som ol tm, studt cdmc chmt ws hh
th tht of studts who xpcd  fully f2f o fully ol 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 codtos
(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 outpfoms 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
studt/tch
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
ds fo homwok,
quizzes, labs, exams, and
similar, in some cases
combined with student
satisfaction scores
42 Slr 1999–
2013
4
rowe,
Frantz,
&
Bozlk
(2012)
meaningful
integration
Bl shows some
measure of
improvement, but
clms  dfcult to
mk
Pre- and post-tests,
interviews, focus groups,
suys, 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
ol  dfcult du
to small cell sizes
knowledge, observable
sklls, poblm-sol
sklls, tttuds,
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. effct o
dclt kowld:
d=0.34, k=33;
effect on procedural
kowld: d=
0.52, k=6; effct o
reactions: d=–.15,
k=11
Dclt kowld,
pocdul kowld
assessed by either
participating in activity or
tk  wtt tst
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 wth f2f
enhancement
as moderating
variable,
or how
frequently
technology
was used
De mixed with a
ct mout of f2f
instruction seems to
be most effective.
media involvement of
60–80%: d=0.49, k=18,
p<.001
Grades, quizzes,
dpdt/stddzd
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 wth ol
hcmt ws 11%
mo ffct th f2f
oly; d=0.27
Pcptul sklls,
tllctul sklls,
moto sklls, tttuds,
tpsol sklls/
averaged across reactions
and learning criteria
15 ma 1980–
2000
Despite the near unanimous agreement about the effect of Bl, some scholars conclude
tht th xst dc s mxd, d tht th st-od studs usd  mt-lyss
lck sttstcl cotol fo cofoud fctos (row t l., 2012; Zho & Bslow, 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 codtos h  sctly hh ffct o chmt s (Js
& Bly, 2010; Lds, 2009; Ms t l., 2013). i oth wods, lthouh th ffcts
of BL stucto c b s, th ssmt of cuslty s f mo dfcult to sct
(row t l., 2012).
glzblty of th ds  BL ffctss sch s poblmtc du to th lck
of consistency across the primary studies from which the datasets for meta-analyses are
dw. Fst, th pmy studs lck cosstcy  wht compss BL stuctol 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  bod dto mbcs pctcs too ds d d  tsty to b
plctd wthout mo dtld spcctos. Scod, th pmy sch s cout
 d wht costtuts 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,
xpssos of stsfcto, skll lutos, lutos of th cous s  whol, s wll
s tto outcoms (.., Zho t l., 2005). Oth schs look t th pmy
studs dtd whth studt l sultd  dclt o pocdul kowld
(Stzm, K, Stwt, & Wsh, 2006), o th l of fcts o poblm sol sklls
(Lds, 2009). rct mt-lyss d systmtc lttu ws td to sttl o
exclusively quantitative measures of academic achievement (Ms t l., 2013), whch do
ot cssly pst mful outcoms (ross & Moso, 2014). Sc  compso
of academic achievement between different instructional conditions is the foundation for
demonstrating the positive impact of Bl, the diversity of meanings of academic achievement
futh cofouds th pottl fo lz th sch ds.
To conclude, Bl effectiveness studies support the premise that students who learn from
th combto of ol d f2f mods dlop btt l outcoms th th
peers exposed to either of the modes exclusively. although the research speculates that
BL combs th “bst of two wolds,” studs of ffctss lck cosstcy  wht
constitutes Bl environments, and what outcomes are being compared. Thus, the research
offs lmtd dc s to wht spcts of BL pdoy o tcholoy uc l
outcoms (abuh, 2014; Tos-Stl & Dw, 2013).
instructional Practices and Technology that impact Bl
another prominent theme in the reviewed research focuses on instructional practices per-
cd s fobl fo BL mods. Th dscusso blow s stuctud to ct wht 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 “bst” pctcs. Fo xmpl, som pctcs h b smply commdd 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-
std hstoy,  sc Clk (1983) chlld th oto tht tcholoy-s-s hs 
ffct o l. Clk ud tht th stuctol pctc, ot th mdum of dly,
ultmtly ucs th l pocss. rsch dmostts tht us tcholoy
in Bl for communication, for presentation, for searching, and so on, has varying effects on
cdmc chmt. Mo spcclly, tcholoy usd to pod cot suppot
has a much higher moderating effect on achievement in Bl (g+=0.59) than technology
podd fo cott/psttol suppot (g+=0.24) or technology used to facilitate
communication among peers and with the instructor (g+=0.31) (Bd t l., 2014;
Schmd t l., 2014). as otd by Bd t l. (2014), lthouh ths ds sm to
chll th utlty of tcholoy, such coclusos t ths st would b supcl.
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
ld to o-lz th dfft ffodcs tht h pottl to uc studt
l. i cocluso, ths ds suppot th stdpot of Clk’s oppots 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
dto of such ttos tht would ct th mpotc of both th tcholoy
choc d th stuctol pctc (H & You, 2008).
i ddto to th studs slctd fo th sythss,  mt-lyss by Schmd t l. (2014)
investigated the impact of how much technology is used within the Bl provision. They found
tht studts  f2f clssooms wh tcholoy s usd t  low o mdum tsty ll
outperform students in a predominantly technology-based classroom (i.e., high intensity).
Smlly, Bd t l. (2014) sttd whth spd  low-to-modt mout
of tm  th BL ol mod (up to 30% wth t lst 50% f2f) hs  mpct o cdmc
achievement when compared to students spending longer periods in the online mode (ap-
poch 50% wth 50% f2f). Th sults  ot sttstclly sct, d dct tht

76 Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
 couss wh t lst 50% of th clss s f2f mod, studts who spd mo tm 
the online mode outperform those whose exposure to the online mode is shorter. a similar
td ws otd by Ms t l. (2013). Tht sd, th mt-lyss udtk by Schmd
t l. (2014) susts tht dffcs  th mpct of th tsty of tcholoy my b
ucd by th subjct mtt of th cous tslf. at ths pot, bsds suppot th
stdpot tht tcholoy s  pott lmt  th ductol stt, such ds
 dfcult to ply to wll-dd pctcl mplctos tht c fom th ds of
Bl courses.
BL sch phps pods oly tl sht to th pottl mpct of spcc tch-
olocl ttos, d sold coclusos  s yt dfcult to mk. as Mcg d
rs (2012) pot out  th systmtc w of bst pctcs, th s o mt
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) pod sttstclly dd dc tht th pdocl ppochs usd
in Bl can have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Their meta-analysis
ttd 12 stuctol pctcs s modt bls3. Th schs dtd
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 aer 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 aer 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) (Ms t l., 2013).
Bd t l. (2014) lso ttd stuctol-ltd fctos s modt bls. Thy
focused, however, on the types of interactions students had in Bl provisions, and included
th th typs of tctos — studt-studt, studt-tch d studt-cott, 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-
cto typs upo studt l outcoms. How, th ds do sust tht th
presence of two or three types of interaction yields a higher effect than only one (g+=0.44
fo two typs of tcto; g+=0.47 fo th typs; 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 Joksmo t l. (2015)  ths ss of pps). Futhmo, th ffcts of
the combinations of interaction types in Bl support the interaction equivalency theorem
(adso, 2003). adso’s hypothszs tht  OL hh lls of mo th o typ
of tcto “wll lkly pod  mo stsfy ductol xpc, thouh ths
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
btw th ptcpts  th l pocss (Moo, 1989, 1993).
rcommdd stuctol pctcs fo BL mo ffct pctcs wth f2f d ol
modes respectively. For example, there has been strong evidence of the essential role that
fdbck plys  l fom f2f ducto sch (Htt & Tmply, 2007), s wll
s De/OL sch (Pul, 2001), d ductol tcholoy sch (azdo, 1993). as
xpctd, pompt fdbck s lso  sustd pctc  BL stts, ct OL/De
xpcs; commdd pctcs of BL lso clud ct l d d t-
ctty (Mcg & rs, 2012). O,  ccod wth both f2f d OL stuctol pcpls,
l commdtos  BL clud d cl cous objcts, whch  th
foundation for the course activities, assignments, and assessments. The design of these
l ctts must ccout fo th spccts of f2f d ol mods. Tht b
said, literature on Bl pedagogy has tied itself more strongly to ol, with far fewer insights
tk fom f2f ducto sch (abuh, 2014).

78 Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
course Design
Clly, OL d f2f off  ch ht fo th dly d ds of spcc lmts  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 (gso & Kuk, 2004). Ths pt of BL cous ds s ot yt bsd o sufct
dc. Th chll of how to mx tss wh  xst cous s -dsd
to  bld. Fo stc,  th study by ghm d robso (2007), o o-thd 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
wth ps. as such, t s tmpt to “tslt”  pctc tht xsts wth  cous to
 cospod tcholoy-bsd pctc (Slomo, 2002), but sch pods lttl
ssstc s to th typs of “tsltos” tht would b mful  BL cotxts.
Ds ctts fo BL ols udstd th dffcs btw 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-
mt of fctul d dclt kowld (Lds, 2009; row t l., 2012; Stzm t
l., 2006), whl poblm-bsd f2f l hs  post ffct o sklls, d  t
ffct o kowld (Dochy, Ss, v d Bossch, & gjbls, 2003; gjbls, Dochy, v
d Bossch, & Ss, 2005). Th pms tht dfft stuctol mods  sutd fo
dfft tsks s futh comd by studs tht show tht th sm mout of tm spt
o  tsk wll mpct th l outcom  th OL mod, but wll ot h  compbl
mpct  th f2f stt (Ms 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
(Bd t l., 2004), sch d pctc commd tht studts d th stucto
cy o th costos coss both th ol d f2f mods (Stcy & gbc, 2009).
Such continuous conversations allow for leveraging the convenience and deeper levels of
sychoous dscusso (Bd t l., 2004; Bok & ghm, 2006; Hstsk & Kll,
2007) wth th pottl fo  sto ss of commuty  both wb-bsd d f2f
sychoous commucto (ro & Jod, 2004).
in contrast with recommendations on how to mix student-student and student-instructor
tctos, th lttu wd lcks dc d th bld of studt-cott
tctos (Hlms, 2014). H th cocpt 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, &
Smth, 2013). FC s  spcc cous ds tht combs f2f tct 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) ttmpts to lut ths pctc. Th sults dct tht most pmy studs
use single-group study design, providing no point of comparison for learning outcomes.
accod to Bshop d vl (2013), th dc tht FC outpfoms th tdtol
clssoom s cdotl, d lttl wok us cotolld xpmtl o qus-xpmtl
designs actually investigates what they call objective learning outcomes.
Mcg d rs (2012) off  xhust sythss of bst pctcs potd by BL pc-
titioners in primary studies, including strategies and techniques related to course design,
pedagogy, implementation, and assessment. They recommend that Bl provisions be de-
sd, th th dsd fom f2f modls, d tht cous compots b ld,
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 studts who pf d/o bt fom BL posos. Fo stc, Lds (2009)
found that older students seem to prefer the ol mode. Students in undergraduate-level Bl
couss lso td to outpfom thos t th dut ll (Bd t l., 2014; Ms
t l., 2009, 2013). Futhmo, ls otd towds fomto d ds pp
to b mo stsd wth th ol compots of BL, whl thos mo popl d fl-
s otd showd hh stsfcto wth f2f compots (akkoyulu & Ylmz-Soylu,
2008). Dspt ths tds b otd  two ct BL mt-lyss, ths ds
 sttstclly sct.

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 tch d to ssst wth slf-ultd l sklls (Bd t l., 2014; Bok
& ghm, 2006; Mcg & rs, 2012; Schmd t l., 2014; Tos-Stl & Dw, 2013).
assessment in Bl
Oly 2.36% of ll tcls o BL  hh ducto, dxd  th Wb of Scc, d-
dssd th topc of ssssmt (Tos-Stl & Dw, 2013). Cosqutly, commd-
tions related to assessment in Bl practices are limited. in their synthesis of best practices,
Mcg d rs (2012) pot tht pcttos pf BL ssssmt to b coductd
online, along with traditional assessments such as quizzes, exams, and essays. They also
ckowld th tst  lut pojcts, thdd dscussos, d psttos, s
well as assessing groups in collaborative contributions rather than individuals. mcGee and
rs (2012) ot tht f BL ssssmt s coductd  th f2f fomt, th t lso tds to
b tdtol, .., l xms, tm pps, d so o. i cocluso, th uthos com
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
tch’s ol hs  sct uc o studt l outcoms. Fo xmpl,  th
sults of th De mt-lyss, Zho t l. (2005) potd tht wh stucto olmt
s low, th outcoms of De  ot s post s thos of fully f2f clsss. How, wh
stucto olmt  De s t ts hhst, l outcoms show  sctly btt
ffct th thos of f2f. Smlly, Ms t l. (2013) showd th sctly hh ffct tht
instructor-directed (expository) instructional practices can have on academic achievement
(g+=0.386). althouh, s potd out by ghm (2013), th of ths studs ctully
dtd th spcts of stucto olmt tht fclttd studt l.
althouh th mt-lyss d systmtc ws lck dtl o th typs of stucto
involvement that improve student outcomes, further insight can be gained from primary
sch studs. Fo stc, Sh d Bdjo (2013) dmostt tht studts  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 dct stucto — ll lmts of tch psc (gso, adso, & ach,
2001). Th uthos u tht ths studt pcpto my xpl th hh ffct szs
ltd to cdmc pfomc  BL s compd to thos of OL o f2f. Po OL sch
has demonstrated that teaching presence can predict levels of social presence and that it
ucs cot psc.
The State of Bl research
a futh pomt thm lts to th stt of BL sch tslf. Tht s, udtk
spcc sch o how th ld s ol thouh fo xmpl th us of bblomtcs
d cott lyss. Fo stc, Hlso t l. (2012) lyzd hh-mpct schol-
shp  th ld, w th most ctd tcls, books, uthos, d utl jouls.
Dysdl t l. (2013) lso coductd  thmtc lyss of doctol dssttos, s wll
s  thmtc lyss of th hh-mpct scholshp (Hlso t l., 2014). Tos-Stl
d Dw (2013) udtook  sml tsk, w d thmtclly cod ll BL sch
on higher education indexed by the web of Science. in addition, Bliuc, Goodyear, and ellis
(2007) coductd  w of mthodolocl chocs d sch focus  studt xp-
cs of BL, whl abuh (2014) wd cdmc wok o BL  mmt ducto.
Several of these systematic reviews report that the majority of primary research on Bl can
b clssd 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
 bldd cous (abuh, 2014; Hlso t l., 2014; Tos-Stl & Dw, 2013). Ths
is consistent with the reported dominant methodologies, i.e., the majority of research has
b dd fom “tchs s schs lyz th ow studts’ xpcs of
BL” (Bluc t l., 2007, p. 235). Such  td llustts tht BL pctc hs pdomtly
b mplmtd “bottom-up” by ddul tchs  th ow clssooms   ds
to mpo studt l (Dysdl t l., 2013).
The authors of systematic reviews of the Bl research are consistent in their observations
d th stt of tht sch. Th s mt tht th ld of BL hs mtud
(abuh, 2014; Dysdl t l., 2013; Hlso t l., 2012) but stll hs  dscoct
btw BL pctc d thoy (Dysdl t l., 2013). To dt, BL ls hly o OL
thos (abuh, 2014), s th hs b lttl scholly wok o th dlopmt of
w thos o modctos to stblshd thoy (Hlso t l., 2014). To ddss ths
dscocto, th s  d fo thos tht c btt xpl th uc of bld

82 Synthesis of Selected Scholarly Work
the history and state of blended learning
pctcs o studt l (ghm, H, & gbbos, 2013).
rschs lso hhlht sct ps  th cut sch. Fst, th ol of th
stucto s ot sufctly ddssd, o  th stff o sttutol pspcts du to
th lck of fomto o pofssol dlopmt d BL sttutol polcy d dopto
(Dysdl t l., 2013; Hlso t l., 2014; Tos-Stl & Dw, 2013). Scod, both
stt-of-th-ld ws d mt-lyss tht ddss th coc of tcholoy
wth f2f cotxts sust tht futu dctos fo sch clud stt bldd
stuctol pctcs, spcclly th ltoshp to studt motto d mt,
wth ptcul focus o th studt chctstcs tht bt most fom st dss.
Finally, suggestions for further research include investigating the role of learner choice and
slf-ultd l (Bd t l., 2014; Dysdl t l., 2013; ghm, 2006; Ms
t l., 2013).
institutional adoption
Oly o systmtc w o th ssu of BL dopto, by Shp, Bld, robts,
& Fcs (2006), ws foud  ou sch of th lttu. Ths w dos ot fully fll
ud th bod dto of BL doptd fo ths sythss, s t dls wth th dopto
of LMS/vLe-suppotd f2f clssooms (xclud thos comb ol d f2f mods).
however, the Sharpe et al. study is highly relevant as it highlights the approaches and
pocsss tht h pomotd BL dopto. Mo spcclly, Shp t l. obsd tht
 mjo dt of dopt BL hs b ts mbuous dto, “whch llows stff
to negotiate their own meaning” (p. 4). in line with that, Picciano, Dziuban, & Graham
(2013) obs tht th  o lbl stmts of th umb of studts olld 
Bl. essentially, faculty are not fully cognizant of when they are, or are not, teaching in Bl
fomt. Futhmo, colls d usts do ot dly kp cods of fculty who
tch bldd couss (Pcco t l., 2013).
Bsds th l lck of studs w dopto xpcs, o studs w d-
td tht lysd th ous pots d modls ltd to th cost-ffctss of BL.
althouh, ghm (2013) hs ctly otd tht cost-ffctss s  obous tol
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 lt fo cost-ffctss (ghm, 2013).

83
Conclusions and Implications for Research and Practice
the history and state of blended learning
conclUSionS
anD imPlicaTionS
For reSearch
anD PracTice
Ths pot pstd  sythss of th thms d ds fom som 20 mt-lyss
d systmtc studs to off  dc-bsd pspct o th pctcs kow s
Bldd L —  combto of f2f d wb-bsd, tcholoy-mdtd ductol
contexts. Studies investigating Bl have evolved from grassroots practice into a maturing
sch ld. Ths s wll dcd  th ch dtos, ow umb of doctol
dssttos, d xpd costos pstly tk plc  th pmy sch.
Ths tsfomto of th BL ld hs b fuld by pd dcs  tcholoy, fcl-
tt OL stucto tht mos th popts of f2f cotxts, thus bl th pd
convergence of these instructional modalities.
Dspt th dlopmt of BL, ts cut dpdc o ts “pt” mods of dly s
ompst  y thm sythszd  ths pot. Fst, ds fom th ffctss
studs coclud tht comb f2f d ol mods of dly hs  hh ffct 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
dlopd wth OL d f2f mods, wth hy lc o OL/De. Cous (-)ds
mts ts focus o ppochs tht hlp cptlz o th pcd bts fom ths
separate modes of delivery, e.g., the enhanced social presence and relationship building
thouh f2f mods (ro & Jod, 2004; Sh & Bdjo, 2013), d th l cotol
d th xblty of ccss thouh ol mods (ghm, 2013). Thd, th sch ld
ls hly o cocpts dlopd  OL/De whl lck ts ow thos to ddss
blending itself. consequently, despite the abundance of individual accounts of blended
xpcs, th s  lck of mpcl sch tht would fd bck to  th bl-
d-spcc thotcl lss.

84 Conclusions and Implications for Research and Practice
the history and state of blended learning
Such dpdc o th two dly mods (f2f/OL) fom whch BL md, sults 
little evidence about the actual blending —  ds st of pctcs wth th pottl
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 ctoy of “sufc l sch” (ross & Moso, 2014), s thy fl 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 udtk thos tht systclly ut th l tht tks plc coss th
physical and the virtual.
Bl research has provided some evidence that certain types of technology are more con-
duc to poduc hh msud l outcoms, whch bs th mdum bck
to th costo bout l d pdoy (Clk, 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-
mty (Thompso, 2007), pdocl ctts mdtd by tcholoy d to t wht
that technology can afford.
in sum, based on the evidence synthesized in this report, we argue that deeper insights
d focus o dtl l — .., l mdtd by ous tcholocl mthods of
tscd physcl d tul spc — would llow pcttos of BL to mk btt
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
wy tht lds to futh mtuto of th ld.

85
References
the history and state of blended learning
reFerenceS
akkoyulu, B., & Ylmz-Soylu, M. (2008). a study of studt’s pcptos   bldd
learning environment based on different learning styles. Educational Technology
& Society, 11(1), 183–193.
all, C. (2004). Lf wth lcty: Tc th oluto of socl softw. rtd fom
http://www.ctulk.o/oup/1218/tcl/1613220
all, i. e., & Sm, J. (2003). Sz th oppotuty: 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., & Sm, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online
education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. eriC. rtd fom http://c.
d.o/?d=eD530061
all, i. e., & Sm, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education
in the United States. Slo Cosotum. PO Box 1238, nwbuypot, Ma 09150.
all, i. e., Sm, J., & gtt, r. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of
blended education in the United States. eriC. rtd fom http://c.
d.o/?d=eD529930
adso, T. (2003). gtt th mx ht : a updtd d thotcl tol fo
interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
4(2). rtd fom http://www.odl.o/dx.php/odl/tcl/watcl/149
adso, T. (2008). Socl softw tcholos  dstc ducto: Mxmz l
freedoms. in International Handbook of Distance Education, (pp. 167–184). emld
Group Publishing.
abuh, J. B. (2014). Wht mht ol dly tch us bout bldd mmt
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
Bd, r. M., abm, P. C., Bookhosk, e., Wd, C. a., Tmm, r. M., Suks, M. a.,
& Bthl, e. C. (2009). a mt-lyss of th typs of tcto ttmts 
distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.
Bd, r. M., abm, P. C., Lou, Y., Bookhosk, e., Wd, a., Wozy, L., … Hu,
B. (2004). How dos dstc ducto comp wth clssoom stucto? a
meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3),
379–439. do:10:3102/0034654309333844
Bd, r. M., Bookhosk, e., Schmd, r. F., Tmm, r. M., & abm, P. C. (2014). a mt-
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
Bshop, J. L., & vl, M. a. (2013). Th ppd clssoom: a suy of th sch.
ASEE National Conference Proceedings. atlt, ga. rtd fom http://www.
studsuccsho.l/wp-cott/uplods/2014/04/ppd-clssoom-tkl.pdf
Bluc, a.-M., goody, P., & ells, r. a. (2007). rsch focus d mthodolocl chocs
in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231–244.
Bok, C.J., & ghm, C.r. (eds.)(2006). Hdbook of bldd l: Global perspectives,
local Designs. San Francisco, ca:Pfeiffer Publishing.
Buff, D. O., Fsh, D. H., Mcew, K. e., & Smth, B. e. (2013). Wpp  MOOC:
Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. MERLOT Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187–199. rtd fom http://jolt.mlot.
o/ol9o2/buff_0613.pdf
Clk, r. e. (1983). rcosd sch o l fom md. Review of Educational
Research, 53(4), 445–459.

87
References
the history and state of blended learning
Cook, D. a., Lso, a. J., gsd, S., Dups, D. M., ew, P. J., & Moto, 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., Ss, M., v d Bossch, P., & gjbls, D. (2003). effcts of poblm-bsd
learning: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.
Dysdl, J. S., ghm, C., Sp, K. J., & Hlso, L. r. (2013). a lyss of sch
trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and
Higher Education, 17, 90–100. do:10.1016/j.hduc.2012.11.003
gso, D. r., adso, T., & ach, W. (2001). Ctcl thk, cot psc,
and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education, 15(1), 7–23. do:10.1080/08923640109527071
gso, D. r., & Kuk, H. (2004). Bldd l: Uco ts tsfomt
potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
do:10.1016/j.hdu.2004.02.001
gjbls, D., Dochy, F., v d Bossch, P., & Ss, M. (2005). effcts of poblm-bsd
learning: a meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational
Research, 75(1), 27–61. do: 10.3102/00346543075001027
gkd, J. W., Moow, D., & Ds, n. e. (2011). Ol fomt ssssmt  hh
education: a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.
do:10.1016/j.compdu.2011.06.004
ghm, C. (2013). em pctc d sch  bldd l. Handbook of
Distance Education, 333–350.
ghm, C. (2006). Bldd l systms. CJ Bok & Cr ghm, The handbook of
blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer.
ghm, C., & Dzub, C. (2008). Bldd l omts. i J. M. Spcto, M.
D. Mll, J. el, & M. J. Bshop (eds.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology. Sp. rtd fom http://lk.sp.
com/cott/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5.pdf

88 References
the history and state of blended learning
ghm, C., H, C. r., & gbbos, a. S. (2013). Dlop modls d thoy fo bldd
learning research. in Blended Learning: Research Perspectives (Vol.2). routledge.
ghm, C., & robso, r. (2007). rlz th tsfomtol pottl of bldd
learning: comparing cases of transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher
education. Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, 83–110.
Hlso, L. r., ghm, C., Sp, K. J., & Dysdl, J. S. (2012). a lyss of hh mpct
scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Education, 33(3),
381–413. do:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166
Hlso, L. r., ghm, C., Sp, K. J., Dysdl, J. S., & H, C. r. (2014). a
thmtc lyss of th most hhly ctd scholshp  th st dcd of bldd
learning research. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20–34. do:10.1016/j.
hduc.2013.09.004
H, r. D., & You, M. (2008). rsch o ductol tcholos. i M. Spcto,
M. D. Mll, J. v. Mbo, & M. Dscoll (eds.), Handbook of Educational
Communications and Technology (3d d., pp. 731–739). nw Yok: routld.
Htt, J., & Tmply, H. (2007). Th pow of fdbck. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81–112. do: 10.3102/003465430298487
Hlms, S. a. (2014). Bldd/hybd couss:  w of th lttu d commdtos
for instructional designers and educators. Interactive Learning Environments, 22
(6), 80-810. do:10.1080/10494820.2012.745420
Hstsk, S., & Kll, C. (2007). Comput-mdtd commucto  ducto: a
review of recent research. Educational Media International, 44(1), 61–77. do:
10.1080/09523980600922746
Hulsm, T. (2004). Th two-pod ttck o l suppot: Costs d ctful focs
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
Js, S., & Bly, T. r. (2010). effctss of fully ol couss fo coll studts:
rspos to  Dptmt of educto mt-lyss. rtd fom http://
cdmccommos.columb.du/tm/c:172120
Kw, J., & K, J.-J. (2013). a w of mpcl sch o bldd 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). Wll md uc l? rfm th dbt. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19. do: 10.1007/BF0229908
Lds, r. n. (2009). Traditional, web-based, and hybrid instruction: A comparison of
training methods. Usty of Msot. rtd fom http://coscy.
um.du/hdl/11299/52260
Mcg, P., & rs, a. (2012). Bldd cous ds: a sythss of bst pctcs. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.
Ms, B., Toym, Y., Muphy, r., Bk, M., & Jos, K. (2009). eluto of dc-bsd
practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
US Department of Education. rtd fom http://c.d.o/?d=eD505824
Ms, B., Toym, Y., Muphy, r., & Bk, M. (2013). Th ffctss of ol d
blended learning: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College
Record, 115(3), 1–47.
Moo, M. g. (1989). edtol: Th typs of tcto. rtd fom http://www.
tdfol.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). Lodo: routld.
Moo, M. g., & Ksly, g. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online
learning. C L. rtd fom https://books.ool.com.u/
books?d=dU8KaaaaQBaJ

90 References
the history and state of blended learning
Pul, D. S. (2001). A meta-analytic review of factors that inuence the effectiveness of
Web-based training within the context of distance learning. Texas a&m University.
Pcco, a. g., Dzub, C. D., & ghm, C. (2013). rsch Pspcts. i Blended
Learning: Research Perspectives (Vol.2). routledge.
r, L. (2010). itt, bodbd, d cll pho sttstcs. Pew Internet & American
Life Project, 5. rtd fom http://www.dstbutdwokplc.com/DW/rsch/
itt%20bodbd%20d%20cll%20pho%20sttstcs%20-%20Pw%20
itt%20rpot%20J%202010.pdf
ross, S. M., Moso, g. r., & Lowth, D. L. (2010). eductol tcholoy sch pst
and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35. rtd fom http://ultul..cuds.
du.co/publco/lms/L.000.002.Mg/Documtos/axos/Cp3/1.pdf
ross, S. M., & Moso, J. r. (2014). Msu mful outcoms  cosqutl
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., & Jod, H. (2004). Bldd l d ss of commuty: a compt
analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). rtd fom http://www.odl.
o/dx.php/odl/tcl/watcl/192
row, M., Ftz, J., & Bozlk, v. (2012). Th ol of bldd l  th clcl
education of healthcare students: a systematic review. Medical Teacher, 34(4),
216–221. do: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.642831
Slomo, g. (2002). Tcholoy d pdoy: Why do’t w s th pomsd oluto?
Educational Technology, 42(2), 71–75.
Schmd, r. F., Bd, r. M., Bookhosk, e., Tmm, r. M., abm, P. C., Suks, M. a.,
… Woods, J. (2014). Th ffcts of tcholoy us  postscody ducto:
a meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271–291.
do: 10.1016/j.compdu.2013.11.002

91
References
the history and state of blended learning
Shp, r., Bld, g., robts, g., & Fcs, r. (2006). The undergraduate experience
of blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. higher education
acdmy Lodo. rtd fom http://www.slmcstudstwok.c.uk/ssts/
ws%20Yok%20-%20dlt%20ths%20soo/documts/ouwok/ch/
bldd_l_full_w.pdf
Sh, P., & Bdjo, T. (2013). Udstd dstctos  l  hybd, d ol
omts: a mpcl stto of th commuty of quy fmwok.
Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355–370. do:10.1080/10494820.2011
.584320
Stzm, T., K, K., Stwt, D., & Wsh, r. (2006). Th compt ffctss
of web-based and classroom instruction: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology,
59(3), 623–664. do: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x
Stcy, e., & gbc, P. (2009). itoducto to bldd l pctcs. i Stcy, e.
(ed.) Effective Blended Learning Practices: Evidence-Based Perspectives in ICT-
Facilitated Education. iGi Global.
Thompso, M.M. (2007). Fom dstc ducto to -l. i r. adws & C.
haythornthwaite (eds.). SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp.159-178).
london: Sage Publications ltd.
Tos-Stl, g., & Dw, S. (2013). Th lttu ldscp of bldd 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). nw modls fo ol l: impo l d duc costs
EDUCAUSE review, 38 (5), 28–38. rtd fom: http://www.ducus.du//
lby/pdf/m0352.pdf
Zho, Y., & Bslow, L. (2013). Lttu w o hybd/bldd l. rtd
fom http://tll.mt.du/sts/dfult/ls/lby/Bldd_L_Lt_rw.pdf
Zho, Y., L, J., Y, B., & T, S. (2005). Wht mks th dffc? a pctcl lyss
of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teacher’s College Record,
107, 1836–1884.