essay blended learning

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Psychol Res Behav Manag

A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews on Blended Learning: Trends, Gaps and Future Directions

Muhammad azeem ashraf.

1 Research Institute of Education Science, Hunan University, Changsha, People’s Republic of China

Meijia Yang

Yufeng zhang, mouna denden.

2 Research Laboratory of Technologies of Information and Communication & Electrical Engineering (LaTICE), Tunis Higher School of Engineering (ENSIT), Tunis, Tunisia

Ahmed Tlili

3 Smart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

4 School of Professional Studies, Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA

Ronghuai Huang

Daniel burgos.

5 Research Institute for Innovation & Technology in Education (UNIR iTED), Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Logroño, 26006, Spain

Blended Learning (BL) is one of the most used methods in education to promote active learning and enhance students’ learning outcomes. Although BL has existed for over a decade, there are still several challenges associated with it. For instance, the teachers’ and students’ individual differences, such as their behaviors and attitudes, might impact their adoption of BL. These challenges are further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, as schools and universities had to combine both online and offline courses to keep up with health regulations. This study conducts a systematic review of systematic reviews on BL, based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, to identify BL trends, gaps and future directions. The obtained findings highlight that BL was mostly investigated in higher education and targeted students in the first place. Additionally, most of the BL research is coming from developed countries, calling for cross-collaborations to facilitate BL adoption in developing countries in particular. Furthermore, a lack of ICT skills and infrastructure are the most encountered challenges by teachers, students and institutions. The findings of this study can create a roadmap to facilitate the adoption of BL. The findings of this study could facilitate the design and adoption of BL which is one of the possible solutions to face major health challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction

Blended Learning (BL) is one of the most frequently used approaches related to the application of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in education. 1 In its simplest definition, BL aims to combine face-to-face (F2F) and online settings, resulting in better learning engagement and flexible learning experiences, with rich settings way further the use of a simple online content repository to support the face-to-face classes. 2 , 3 Researchers and practitioners have used different terms to refer to the blended learning approach, including “brick and click” instruction, 4 hybrid learning, 4 dual-mode instruction, 5 blended pedagogies, 4 HyFlex learning, 6 targeted learning, 4 multimodal learning and flipped learning. 3

Researchers and practitioners have pointed out that designing BL experiences could be complex, as several features need to be considered, including the quality of learning experiences, learning instruction, learning technologies/tools and applied pedagogies. 7–9 Therefore, they have focused on investigating different BL perspectives since 2000. 10 Despite this 21-year investigation and research, there are still several challenges and unanswered questions related to BL, including the quality of the designed learning materials 9 , 11 , 12 applied learning instructions, 9 the culture of resisting this approach, 13 , 14 and teachers being overloaded when applying BL. 15 The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the challenges associated with BL. Specifically, international universities and schools worldwide had to take several actions with respect to health regulations, such as reducing classroom sizes. 16 Therefore, they combined online and offline learning to maintain their courses for both on-campus and off-campus experiences. 16 For instance, as a response to the effort made by the government of Indonesia to carry out physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, in all domains including education, some elementary schools used BL with Moodle platform to ensure the continuity of learning. 17 In this context, several teachers raised concerns about implementing BL experiences, such as the lack of infrastructure and competencies to do so, calling for further investigation in this regard. Several international organizations, such as UNESCO and ILO, claimed that teacher professional development for online and blended learning is one of the priorities for building resilient education systems for the future. 18

Based on the background above, it is seen that there is still room for discussion of designing and implementing effective BL. Researchers have suggested that conducting literature reviews can help identify challenges and solutions in a given domain. 19–21 Review papers may serve the development of new theories and also shape future research studies, as well as disseminate knowledge to promote scientific discussion and reflection about concepts, methods and practices. However, several BL systematic reviews were conducted in the literature which are of variable quality, focus and geographical region. This made the BL literature fragmented, where no study provides a comprehensive summary that could be a reference for different stakeholders to adopt BL. In this context, Smith et al mentioned that a logical and appropriate next step is to conduct a systematic review of reviews of the topic under consideration, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, thereby providing comprehensive and in-depth findings for different stakeholders. 22 As BL is becoming the new normal, 23 this study takes a step further beyond simply conducting a systematic review and conducts a systematic review of systematic reviews on BL. By systematically examining high-quality published literature review articles, this study reveals the reported BL trends and challenges, as well as research gaps and future paths. These findings could help different stakeholders (eg, policy makers, teachers, instructional designers, etc.) to facilitate the design and adoption of BL worldwide. Although several systematic reviews of literature reviews have been conducted in different fields, such as engineering, 24 healthcare 25 and tourism, 26 no one was conducted on blended learning, to the best of our knowledge. It should be noted that one study was conducted in this context, but it mainly focused on the transparency of the systematic reviews that were conducted 27 and was not about the BL field itself.

Guided by the technology-based learning model (see Figure 1 ), this study aims to answer the following six research questions:

Blended learning model.

RQ1. What are the trends of blended learning research in terms of: publication year, geographic region and publication venue?

RQ2. What are the covered subject areas in blended learning research?

RQ3. Who are the covered participants (stakeholders) in blended learning research?

RQ4. What are the most frequently used research methods (in systematic reviews) in blended learning research?

RQ5. How blended learning was designed in terms of the used learning models and technologies?

RQ6. What are the learning outcomes of blended learning, as well as the associated challenges?

The findings of this study could help to analyze the behaviors and attitudes of different stakeholders from different BL contexts, hence draw a comprehensive understanding of BL and its impact from different international perspectives. This can promote cross-country collaboration and more open BL design that more worldwide universities could be involved in. The findings could also facilitate the design (eg, in terms of the used learning models and technologies) and adoption of BL which is one of the possible solutions to face major health challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methodology

This study presents a systematic review of systematic review papers on BL. In particular, this review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. 28 PRISMA provides a standard peer-accepted methodology that uses a guideline checklist, which was strictly followed for this study, to contribute to the quality assurance of the revision process and to ensure its replicability. A review protocol was developed, describing the search strategy and article selection criteria, quality assessment, data extraction and data analysis procedures.

Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

To deal with this topic, an extensive search for research articles was undertaken in the most common and highly valued electronic databases: Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, 29 using the following search strings.

Search string: ((blending learning substring) AND (literature review substring))

Blended learning substring: “Blended learning” OR “blended education” OR “hybrid learning” OR “flipped classroom” OR “flipped learning” OR “inverted classroom” OR “mixed-mode instruction” OR “HyFlex learning”

Literature review substring: “Review” OR “Systematic review” OR “state-of-art” OR “state of the art” OR “state of art” OR “meta-analysis” OR “meta analytic study” OR “mapping stud*” OR “overview”

Databases were searched separately by two of the authors. After searching the relevant databases, the two authors independently analyzed the retrieved papers by titles and abstracts, and papers that clearly were not systematic reviews, such as empirical, descriptive and conceptual papers, were excluded. Then, the two authors independently performed an eligibility assessment by carefully screening the full texts of the remaining papers, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in Table 1 . During this phase, disagreements between the authors were resolved by discussion or arbitration from a third author. Specifically, to provide high-quality papers, this study was restricted to papers published in journals.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

This research yielded a total of 972 articles. After removing duplicated papers, 816 papers remained. 672 papers were then removed based on the screening of titles and abstracts. The remaining 144 papers were considered and assessed as full texts. 85 of these papers did not pass the inclusion criteria. Thus, as a total number, 57 eligible research studies remained for inclusion in the systematic review. Figure 2 presents the study selection process as recommended by the PRISMA group. 28

Flowchart of the systematic review process.

Quality Assessment

For methodological quality evaluation, the AMSTAR assessment tool was used. AMSTAR is widely used as a valuable tool to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews conducted in any academic field. 30 It consists of 11 items that evaluate whether the review was guided by a protocol, whether there was duplicate study selection and data extraction, the comprehensiveness of the search, the inclusion of grey literature, the use of quality assessment, the appropriateness of data synthesis and the documentation of conflicts of interest. Specifically, two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the included reviews using the AMSTAR checklist. Items were evaluated as “Yes” (meaning the item has been properly handled, 1 point), “No” (indicating the possibility that the item did not perform well, 0 points) or “Not applicable” (in the case of performance failure because the item was not applied, 0 points). Disagreements regarding the AMSTAR score were resolved by discussion or by a decision made by a third author.

Appendix 1 presents the results of the quality assessment of the 57 systematic reviews based on the AMSTAR tool. 19 were rated as being low quality (AMSTAR score 0–4), 30 as being moderate quality (score 5–8), and eight as being high quality (score 9–11). Specifically, no study has acknowledged the conflict of interest in both the systematic review and the included studies. Also, few studies provided the list of the included and excluded studies (3 out of 57), and reported the method used to combine the findings of the studies (13 out of 57). About half of the included studies assessed the scientific quality of the included studies (25 out of 57), but all the studies fulfilled at least one quality criterion.

Data Extraction

This study adapted the technology-based learning model, 31 which has been used in BL contexts, 32 , 33 as shown in Figure 1 . This model is based on six factors: subject area, learning models, participants, outcomes and issues, research methods and adopted technologies. The current study adopted most of the schemes from this model but made slight adjustments according to the features of different models in blended learning. Table 2 presents a detailed description of the coding scheme that was used in this study to answer the aforementioned research questions.

The Coding Scheme for Analyzing the Collected Papers

Results and Discussion

Blended learning trends.

Figure 3 shows that the first two systematic reviews on BL were conducted in 2012. The first, by Keengwe and Kang, 34 investigated the effectiveness of BL practices in the teacher education field. The second was by Rowe et al, 35 which investigated how to incorporate BL in clinical settings and health education. These findings show an early interest in providing teachers with the necessary competencies and skills to use BL, as well as in enhancing health education, where students need more practical knowledge and skills that could be facilitated through BL (eg, simulation health videos, virtual labs, etc.). The number of literature reviews conducted has since increased, showing an increased interest in BL over the years. Specifically, the highest peak of literature reviews conducted on blended learning was in 2020 (16 studies). This might be due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced most institutions worldwide to implement BL (online merged with offline) to accommodate the needs of learners in this disruptive time. 18 This has encouraged many institutions to make their own attempts to practice BL and thus furthered the research interest in examining the best practices of BL.

Distribution of studies by publication year.

Additionally, according to the authors’ affiliation countries (see Figure 4 ), China and the United States have the highest number of publications, with nine and seven studies respectively. This could be explained by the continuous rapid evolution of the technological education industry in both China and the United States, 36 which has made researchers and educators innovate to provide more flexible learning experiences by combining both online and offline environments. 37 This could also be explained by the number of blended learning policies that have been issued in these two countries to facilitate blended learning adoption. 38 , 39

Distribution of studies per country.

Interestingly, while several studies are from Europe (eg, Belgium, the UK, Italy, etc.), there are very few studies from the African and Arab regions. Similarly, in BL contexts, Birgili et al 40 conducted a systematic review about flipped learning between 2012 and 2018; they found very few studies coming from Africa. This indicates a trend where countries with more sufficient educational resources and infrastructure are exposed to more chances to develop BL environments and experiences. These findings call for more cross-country collaboration to facilitate the implementation of BL in the countries that have limited knowledge or infrastructure related to BL. For instance, such a collaboration could cover BL policies, ICT trainings and the development of educational resources and technologies.

Finally, the 57 reviews were published in 44 journals. Figure 5 shows the journals that have at least two publications. Education and Information Technologies has the highest number of publications (six studies), followed by Interactive Learning Environments (four studies) and Nurse Education Today (four studies). These journals are mostly from the educational technology and health fields.

Distribution of studies by publication venue.

Subject Area

Figure 6 shows that most of the literature review studies (n = 21) did not mention the covered subject area and discussed BL in general. For example, Wang et al proposed a complex adaptive systems framework to conduct analysis on BL literature. 41 This shows that, despite the popularity of BL, which has existed for a decade, educators and researchers are still finding it to be a complex concept that needs further investigation regardless of the subject. 2

Distribution of studies by subject area.

Other studies considered BL as being context-dependent, 42 investigating it from different subject areas, namely health (14 studies), STEM (five studies) and language (three studies). This could be explained by these three subjects requiring a lot of practical knowledge, such as communication and pronunciation, programming or physical treatments, where the BL concept could provide teachers with a chance to be more innovative and offer students the possibility of practicing this practical knowledge online by using virtual labs or online virtual programming emulators, for instance. Walker et al 43 and Yeonja et al 44 found that BL is considered to be crucial for health students, and health educators have tried to integrate a wide range of advanced technology and learning tools to enhance their skill acquisition.

From these findings, it can be deduced that more research should be conducted to investigate how BL is conducted in other subject areas that are considered crucial for student performance assessment, such as mathematics. This could help researchers and practitioners compare the different BL design and assessment approaches in different subjects and come up with personalized guidelines that could help educators implement their BL in a specific subject. In this context, studies have pointed out that teachers are willing to implement BL in their courses but do not know how. 45 Additionally, as shown in Figure 6 , most of the conducted literature reviews covered limited number of studies (less than 50). Therefore, the future literature reviews on BL should cover more studies (more than 50) to have an in-depth and broad view of how BL is being implemented in different contexts by different researchers.

Participants

As Figure 7A shows, the most targeted participants by the review studies were students (n = 42) followed by teachers (n = 13) and then working adults, health professionals and researchers (one study for each). This analysis shows that none of the review studies have targeted major players in the adoption of BL, such as policy makers. Owston stated that policies on different levels (eg, institutions, faculties, technology use, data collection procedures, learning support, etc.) are crucial to advancing the adoption of BL for future education. 38 Therefore, to advance BL adoption worldwide, more reviews about BL policies and the focus of these policies – including copyright, privacy and data protection, and others, 46 , 47 – should be investigated to develop a BL policy framework to which everyone could refer.

( A ) Distribution by educational level. ( B ) Distribution by participants.

Figure 7B , on the other hand, shows that most of the review studies (n = 33) focused mainly on higher education, followed by K–12 (six studies) and teacher education (five studies). Interestingly, these findings are in line with two older studies that were conducted in 2012 (Halverson et al) 48 and 2013 (Drysdale et al), 49 where they found that BL is mostly applied in higher education. These findings clearly show that, despite the long period of time since 2012, the research setting of BL application has not changed, which calls for more serious efforts and research about BL design in other contexts, such as K–12. Especially since younger students might lack the appropriate self-regulation skills compared to older students that can help them adopt BL, 50 more support should also be provided accordingly. Additionally, as few studies focused on teacher education, more research should investigate how to harness the power of BL for teacher professional development. There are limited empirical findings on BL for teacher professional development, 34 , 51–53 calling for more investigation in this context.

Research Method

Table 3 shows that most reviews conducted were systematic reviews (n = 47). As researchers note, systematic literature reviews are usually composed with a clearly defined objective, a research question, a research approach and inclusion and exclusion criteria. 54–56 Through systematic review, researchers can come to a qualitative conclusion in response to their research question. Only seven reviews conducted meta-analysis to assess the effect size and variability of BL and to identify potential causal factors that can inform practice and further research. Finally, three studies used both systematic reviews and meta-analysis in their studies, which can quantitatively synthesize the results in an even more comprehensive way. For instance, Liu et al 57 first reviewed the literature of the effectiveness of knowledge acquisition in health-subject learners and then conducted a meta-analysis to show that BL had a significant larger pooled effect size than non-BL health-subject learners. In this way, researchers are able to address the extent to which BL is truly effective in the learning. 57 Considering that only three review papers conducted both systematic review and meta-analysis, we must again address the usefulness of quantitative analysis. There are still many unanswered questions that could be addressed in a better way using quantitative analysis. Therefore, future research should consider conducting more meta-analysis in order to provide a better understanding of the nuanced effects of BL.

Distribution of Studies by Research Method and Subject Area

Design (Learning Models and Technologies)

Figure 8 shows that the majority of review studies (33 out of 57) discussed BL as a generic concept and did not mention any specific model. Additionally, the flipped model was the most frequently implemented model, mentioned by 27 review studies. This model is designed based on three stages: pre-class, in-class and post-class (optional). In the pre-class stage, the students engage with the course content through online resources, so that they spend in-class time doing practical activities and having discussions. Then, in the post-class stage, teachers can assess the students’ perceptions and performance in the flipped course. 32

Frequency of usage of blended learning models.

The second most frequently used models were the station rotation model and the flex model (each mentioned by three studies). In the station rotation model, the student can rotate at fixed points of time (on a fixed schedule or at the teacher’s discretion) between different stations, at least one of which is an online learning station). 58 For instance, the students can rotate between face-to-face (F2F) instruction, online instruction and collaborative activities. The flex model, on the other hand, relies entirely on online materials and student self-study, with the availability of F2F teachers when needed. 59

Two review studies mentioned the self-blend (also known as the “à la carte” model) and the enriched virtual model. The first model allows students to take fully online courses with online teachers, in addition to other F2F courses. 60 In the second model, students are asked to be able to conduct F2F sessions with instructors and then can complete their assignments online, but they are not required to attend F2F classes. 60

Finally, only one study applied the mixed model, supplemental model and online practicing model. Specifically, in the mixed model, content delivery and practical activities occur both F2F and online. In the supplemental model, both content delivery and practical activities take place F2F. In contrast, in the online practicing model, students can practice activities through a specific online learning environment. In particular, the reported BL models were implemented differently in many domains. It should be noted that some studies investigated more than one BL model. For instance, Alammary investigated flipped, mixed, flex, supplemental, and online-practicing models. 59

Table 4 presents the distribution of the reviewed studies by BL models and subject areas. 22 studies (seven multiple courses and 15 uncategorized) have focused on the design of BL in general or in multiple courses. This might be explained by the fact that teachers have limited knowledge about BL models that is why they always face challenges on how to design their blended courses and mix the offline and online settings. 58 This blended learning design problem was further emphasized during the COVID-19 pandemic, where several teachers raised concerns about this matter. 61 Therefore, more BL design trainings should be provided for teachers to help them efficiently design their blended courses.

Distribution of Studies by Blended Learning Models and Subject Area

Additionally, the flipped model was frequently used in health (seven studies), followed by STEM (five studies). This may be explained by health and STEM subjects requiring many hands-on practices to promote skill acquisition and long-term retention by the student. 62 , 63 In line with this, the flipped model enables teachers to reduce the in-class time by teaching all the courses online (in the pre-class stage) and counterbalance the students’ workload, so that the class time can be reserved for practical exercises instead of traditional lectures. For instance, in the health domain, the flipped model is applied by explaining the basic concepts of the course using different learning strategies in the pre-class stage, such as online learning platforms, instructional videos, animation, PowerPoint presentations and 3D virtual gaming situations. Also, students can use social media platforms such as Facebook for online discussions. In-class activities include instructor-led training, discussion of issues, practice or doing exercises (eg, assignments or quizzes), clinical teaching (eg, nursing diagnosis training) or lab teaching. In this context, several learning technologies were used, such as traditional computers and projectors, medical or teaching equipment and simulation teaching aids. Finally, in the post-class stage, some teachers used assessment methods to evaluate students’ perception of the applied model using peer evaluation, post-class evaluation and surveys. Similarly, in STEM subjects, the in-class time was reserved for more practice, including complex exercises where students can interact with each other and with the instructor (collaborative group assignments), active learning exercises rather than lectures, gaming activities, examinations and peer instruction.

Furthermore, as Table 4 shows, the mixed, flex, supplemental and online practicing models were also applied in STEM, specifically in programming courses. 59 This may be explained by the fact that STEM subjects – and programming courses in particular – allow for flexibility; combined with emerging technologies, this enables the teaching of this course in different ways, fully online or F2F. 64 For instance, in the mixed model, students received the course content and practical coding exercises in both F2F and online sessions, reserving most of the in-class time for practical exercises and discussion. In this context, in addition to the classical learning strategies such as online self-paced learning, online collaboration and online instructor-led learning, online programming tools were also used for coding and problem solving in online sessions. In the flex model, both course content and practical coding exercises take place online, but students are required to attend F2F sessions from time to time to check their progress or be provided with feedback. In the supplemental model, both course content and practical coding exercises take place F2F. However, online supplemental activities are added to the course to increase students’ engagement with course content. In the online practicing model, an online programming environment is used as the backbone of students’ learning. It allows students to practice programming and problem solving and provides them with immediate feedback about their programming solutions. The delivery of the course content is achieved through lectures and/or self-based online resources. In some cases, online resources are integrated within the online programming environment.

Outcomes and Challenges

Figure 9 presents the different learning outcomes investigated in the 57 review studies based on two categories: psychological and behavioural outcomes. 65 The majority of studies (49 studies) focused on investigating the psychological outcomes within the reviewed studies. Specifically, students’ self-regulation toward learning was the most investigated psychological outcome (10 studies), followed by satisfaction (nine studies) and engagement (eight studies). According to Van Laer and Elen, blended learning design includes attributes that support self-regulation, including authenticity, personalization, learner control, scaffolding and interaction. 66 The 10 studies found that students’ self-regulation was improved. Additionally, BL was found to improve students’ satisfaction and engagement in different domains, especially in health (seven studies). For instance, Li et al 67 and Presti 68 found that flipped learning enhanced students’ engagement and satisfaction in nursing education. Moreover, motivation, attitude, high-order thinking, social interaction and self-efficacy were found to be improved using BL.

Distribution of learning outcomes based on the number of studies addressing them.

The most investigated behavioural outcome is academic performance (26 studies), followed by skill progression and cooperation. In particular, the 26 studies showed that BL supports learning performance in different subject areas, including health, language and STEM. BL can also enhance students’ skills, such as clinical skills in the health domain, 35 , 69 and speaking skills in the language domain. 70 Additionally, its design may include several collaborative learning assignments (online or F2F) that encourage cooperation with students. 71 It should be noted that some studies investigated more than one type of learning outcomes. For instance, Atmacasoy and Aksu investigated students’ engagement with, collaboration in, participation in and academic performance with the blended learning course. 72

Despite the many advantages that BL offers, it also comes with several challenges. Figure 10 presents the most encountered challenges in the 57 review studies. Specifically, the lack of ICT skills is the most mentioned challenge (seven studies), followed by infrastructure issues (six studies) such as internet-related problems and lack of personal computers, course preparation time (three studies), design model and cost of technologies (two studies for each) and course quality content, student engagement and student isolation (one study for each). It should be noted that 47 studies did not mention any challenges and nine studies mentioned more than one challenge each. For instance, Rasheed et al found that students, teachers and institutions may face different challenges in BL, such as students’ isolation, lack of ICT skills for teachers and students and technological provision challenges (eg, cost of online learning technologies) for institutions. 73

Distribution of blended learning challenges.

Both teachers and students from different domains might lack ICT skills, which can negatively influence their adoption of BL. For instance, Atmacasoy and Aksu stated that teachers with low ICT skills may not have positive attitudes toward using BL since it is based on technology use. 72 Teachers might find difficulties in the ease of use of some technologies while creating a BL course, such as in recording videos, uploading videos and using online learning platforms. 73 Additionally, students may face some technological complexity challenges, such as accessing online educational resources or uploading their materials to the online learning environment. 73

ICT infrastructure is also a crucial layer for facilitating and implementing blended courses; however, it is still a major problem for several universities, especially in developing countries 74 and rural areas. 75 For instance, a lack of basic technologies, including internet, computers and projectors can limit the implementation of blended courses. Therefore, it is very important to improve institutes’ ICT infrastructure in order to improve education in general and enable teachers to teach using BL, which has proven to be efficient in many subject areas (see sections above).

In addition to issues with ICT skills and infrastructure, teachers may lack knowledge about designing BL models and hence face difficulties in selecting the appropriate design for their courses, 58 and they may also spend too much time preparing the blended course. 75 , 76 Moreover, some challenges of online learning, such as engagement and students’ isolation, may be faced in BL. In this context, teachers may integrate online collaborative assignments to solve the problem of isolation 77 and integrate new approaches, such as gamification, into the online learning environment in order to make students motivated and engaged while learning online. 78 , 79 In this context, Ekici found that gamified flipped learning enhanced students’ motivation and engagement while learning. 80

This study conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews on BL. It revealed several findings according to each research question: (1) the first two systematic reviews on BL were conducted in 2012, and this number rapidly increased over the years, reflecting a massive interest in BL. Additionally, more cross-country collaboration should be established to facilitate BL implementation in countries that lack, for instance, infrastructure or the needed BL competencies; (2) despite that several studies focused on specific subject area such as health or STEM, most studies did not discuss BL from a specific subject area; (3) most of the studies targeted students as stakeholders, and neglected major key players for BL adoption, such as policy makers; (4) most of the studies conducted a systematic review with qualitative analysis. Therefore, future research should follow a more quantitative approach through meta-analysis in order to provide a better understanding of the nuanced effects of BL; (5) the majority of studies discussed BL as a generic construct and did not focus on the learning models of BL. However, the flipped model was the most frequently implemented model in the papers that focused on learning models specifically in health and STEM ; and (6) BL can affect students’ psychological and behavioural outcomes. In terms of psychological outcomes, it can enhance students’ self-regulation toward learning, satisfaction and engagement while learning in different domains, especially in health. In terms of behavioural outcomes, BL supported students’ academic performance in different subject areas. Additionally, a lack of ICT skills and infrastructure are the most encountered challenges by teachers, students and institutions.

The findings of this study can help create a roadmap about future research on BL. This could facilitate BL adoption worldwide and thus contribute to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG #4 – equity and high-quality education for all – which works as a backbone for some other SDGs, such as good health (#3), economic Growth (#8) and reduced inequality (#10). Despite the importance of the revealed findings, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. For instance, this study used a limited number of search keywords within specific electronic databases.

Future research might focus on: (1) dealing with these limitations; (2) investigating different BL models with specific application domains to test their impacts on students’ psychological and behavioural outcomes; (3) enhancing students’ motivation and engagement in online sessions by integrating new motivational concepts such as gamification in online learning platforms; and (4) dealing with BL challenges by providing some solutions to enhance the learning experience. For instance, for the challenge of a lack of ICT skills, research might work to provide ICT trainings for teachers and students to enhance their skills with technology.

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (The Research Fund for International Young Scientists; Grant No. 71950410624). However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

This chapter is an introduction to blended learning: how it is defined, how it emerged, how it is being used and what it has to offer, as well as challenges you may encounter when implementing a blended learning approach in your teaching practice.

The Growth of Blended Learning

This guidebook presents new ways of thinking about teaching and learning to help you better prepare your students to learn and develop into 21st-century global citizens.

According to the U.S. Department of Education (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009), a blend of classroom and web-based teaching and learning offers access to the widest range of learning modes and methods for developing student skills and expertise as learners (Cleveland-Innes, 2017). Many findings on blended learning show an increase in learners’ ability to learn collaboratively, think creatively, study independently and tailor their own learning experiences to meet their individual needs.

This guidebook also provides information about some of the technology tools you can use to support in-person delivery in a seamless, truly blended way. Through careful, thoughtful blending and with consideration for technological skill levels and Internet access, learning for anyone can now take place with greater flexibility and convenience.

Innovative educators have for many years been creating new delivery methods in education by combining elements of in-person teaching with technology-enabled learning to bring people together virtually. Since the late 1990s, when simple learning management systems began to emerge, blended learning has grown very quickly. There are now many possible combinations and permutations, but it took time for this to occur.

While computers became part of everyday life for most in the early 2000s, education was slower to integrate computer technology. When it did, technology use was often limited to supplementing the usual teach-by-telling approach. As computers and the Internet demonstrated opportunities  for connecting people in multiple locations as well as for more interaction, more visuals and greater access to information, innovation increased but in fragmented, uneven ways.

Soon, Internet connectivity and browser development allowed broader and more user-friendly resources for anyone wanting to learn. Web-based learning replaced CD-ROM materials. “Rather than having to distribute CD-ROMs to learners, organizations could simply upload material, e Learning assessments, and assignments via the web, and learners could access them with a click of a mouse button” (Pappas, 2015b).

Today, computers, tablets and smartphones are available to the majority of the world’s population, and technology-enabled learning has become more varied and accessible. More and more institutions and teachers are adding web-based learning to their delivery methods, and learners have access to many applications to support their learning. The mantra “anytime, anywhere” has been taken up to describe the new wave of education. However, this notion is being challenged by education practitioners and researchers, who know that learning competence is not universal, student skills are very different from skills needed to participate in social media, and access to broadband Internet is not evenly distributed.

Teachers are still a key part of blended learning — teachers who have subject-matter expertise and basic technology skills, along with the new pedagogies that go with technology, such as constructivism and collaboration. Blended learning expertise provides  both.

What is Blended Learning?

The simplest definition of the term blended learning is the use of traditional classroom teaching methods together with the use of online learning for the same students studying the same content in the same course. It is a “thoughtful fusion of face-to-face and online learning experiences” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). There are also blended programmes , in which students study some courses in face-to-face classrooms and other courses are delivered fully online.

In other words, blended learning is a term applied to the practice of providing instruction and learning experiences through some combination of both face-to-face and technology-mediated learning. During the technology-mediated components of these learning experiences, students are not required to be physically together in one place but may be connected digitally through online communities. For example, one blended learning course could involve students attending a class taught by a teacher in a traditional classroom setting while also completing online components of the course independently, outside of the classroom, on an online learning platform.

Classroom instruction time may be replaced or augmented by online learning experiences, and online learning can include varying degrees of interaction or just time alone in independent study and learning activities. However, in a quality blended learning experience, the content and activities of both in-person and online learning are integrated with one another and work toward the same learning outcomes with the same content. The various learning experiences are synthesised, complement each other, and are planned or orchestrated to run in parallel.

Blended learning is sometimes called hybrid or mixed-mode learning . These systems of instructional design use many types of teaching and learning experiences and vary in design and implementation across teachers, programmes and schools. The potential variations of mixed-mode learning are virtually endless; a good way to get a sense of the range of possibilities is to consider some examples:

• In one school, a few teachers create mixed-mode delivery in their individual classrooms. In another, a whole programme chooses to make blended learning its choice of delivery for all students; all teachers work together to learn how to teach in a blended delivery system.
• Video recorded lectures, live video and other digitally enabled learning opportunities can be a student’s primary instructional interactions with other students and the teacher. In some cases, students may work independently on online lessons, projects and assignments at home or else- where, only periodically meeting with teachers to review their learning progress, discuss their work, ask questions or receive assistance with difficult concepts. In other cases, students may spend their entire day in a traditional school building, but they will spend more time working online and independently than they do receiving instruction from a teacher.

Blended learning can be divided into three main models.

The first model, blended presentation and interaction, has classroom engagement as its primary component, with support from out-of-class, online exercises. The flipped classroom or flipped curriculum approach is a common example of this model, with students viewing podcasts or other online resources independently, followed by classroom-based tutorials or seminars for group learning based upon these resources.

The second is the blended block model (sometimes called a programme flow model), in which a sequence of activities, or “blocks,” is structured to incorporate both face-to-face learning and online study, usually with consideration for both pedagogical goals and practical constraints. For example, a course for geographically distributed learners or working professionals may have limited opportunities for classroom-based learning and therefore begin with a block of intensive face-to-face sessions, followed by blocks of online study and collaboration through online tutorials, possibly followed by a further block of face-to-face learning or group presentations.

The third model is fully online but may still be considered blended if it incorporates both synchronous learning (for example, online tutorials) and asynchronous activities (for example, discussion forums). Thus, blended learning covers one or more of the following three situations:

• Combining instructional modalities (or delivery media).
• Combining instructional methods.
• Combining online and face-to-face instruction.

Table 1.1 Three models of blended learning.

Source: Hannon & Macken (2014)

Blended Learning Uses

As we saw above regarding the blended block model, there are often practical considerations leading us to choose blended learning. In addition, many policy makers and post secondary leaders believe that replacing some components of a learning programme with online or distance education is a cost-effective way to deliver post secondary education.

Our focus in this guidebook is on professional development and the effective introduction of blended learning to improve instructional practice and learner outcomes, not solely to introduce a blended learning resource. While some efficiencies might be created through online delivery, there is increasing evidence about its effectiveness in delivering instruction.

Two recent studies provide different views of whether online education will increase student learning and success. Nevertheless, over the past several years, perceptions of online learning have been shifting in its favor as more learners and educators see it as a viable alternative to some forms of face-to-face learning. Drawing from best practices in both online and face-to-face methods, blended learning is on the rise at colleges and universities as the number of digital learning platforms and ways to leverage them for educational purposes continues to grow.

The opportunities for learning or the affordances blended learning offers are now well understood, and both educators and students find its flexibility, ease Opportunity for collaboration at a distance: Individual students work together virtually in an intellectual endeavor as a learning practice of access, and integration of sophisticated multimedia and technologies highly appealing. The current focus of this trend has shifted to understanding how applications of digital modes of teaching are impacting students. Findings are showing increases in learner creativity, independence and self-direction.

Benefits of Blended Learning

The advantages of blended learning for students include increased learning skills, greater access to information, improved satisfaction and learning outcomes, and opportunities both to learn with others and to teach others. Recent research identifies the following key benefits of blended learning:

• Opportunity for collaboration at a distance: Individual students work together virtually in an intellectual endeavor as a learning practice.
• Increased flexibility: Technology-enabled learning allows for learning anytime and anywhere, letting students learn without the barriers of time and location but with the possible support of in-person engagement.
• Increased interaction: Blended learning offers a platform to facilitate greater interactivity between students, as well as between students and teachers.
• Enhanced learning: Additional types of learning activities improve engagement and can help students achieve higher and more meaningful levels of learning.
• Learning to be virtual citizens: Learners practice the ability to project themselves socially and academically in an online community of inquiry. Digital learning skills are becoming essential to be a lifelong learner, and blended courses help learners master the skills for using a variety of technologies.

Making Blended Learning Work

Technology integration in itself is not necessarily blended learning. If online learning is only a minor component of a classroom-based course, without offering students the independence, convenience and interaction opportunities of being online, it may not really be a blended learning system but simply a case of technology integration.

Creating an effective blended learning environment means making appropriate choices and overcoming the challenges that come with the use of technology. The following challenges and recommendations were identified in recent research on teacher perspectives, conducted by Athabasca University and the Commonwealth of Learning (Cleveland-Innes, Ostashewski, Mishra, Gauvreau, & Richardson, 2017):

• Technology access: A critical first step is to know which resources are available to your students. Is there limited bandwidth, unreliable Internet connectivity, or lack of devices such as laptops or smartphones? Once you are clear about access, you can choose learning activities with the technology in ways that allow all to participate.
• Design: Creating the appropriate in-person and online activities means designing courses with the pedagogic principles of both and integrating technology in a way that supports meaningful learning.
• Safety and security: Create awareness of cyber-malice and ensure security interventions against unethical learning practices, academic dishonesty, identity theft and bullying are in place.
• Skill development, support and training: Both students and instructors must have technological literacy and competence with technology applications.
• Motivation: Students need adequate motivation when engaging in a wide range of often shifting learning modalities, some of which may require significant skill development.

Later chapters will provide further guidance on using technology to create your blended learning environment.

This first chapter has introduced blended learning as an important and rapidly developing form of education, with an emphasis on the benefits it offers to both educators and students, including greater flexibility and convenience, as well as potential increases in learner creativity and independence.

Blended learning can be defined as the combination of face-to-face classroom instruction with online learning within a course or programme — a definition broad enough to include a wide range of variations appropriate to the individual needs and contexts of a school or course.

One key concept is that blended learning is not merely the addition of some technological element to an existing course but rather is an integrated plan utilizing the best of what both face-to-face and online learning have to offer. The blended presentation and interaction model, the blended block model and the fully online model provide initial frameworks for the deliberate structuring of blended learning to improve learning outcomes.

The next chapter will expand on this idea by considering additional models and frameworks for developing effective blended learning, including the Community of Inquiry framework and a systems-based  approach.

A Blended Learning Programme for Teachers

A blended learning programme including the following components was designed to provide teachers in a rural area with the knowledge required to implement technology-enabled learning, as shown by the following blended block model.

Pre-workshop preparation: A questionnaire was sent to participants before the online phase, asking them to describe their role in the educational system and their particular skills. The questionnaire helped facilitators adjust activities to the participants’ backgrounds.

Online workshop (core component): The workshop included individual study with online lessons and activities supported by facilitators. Both synchronous and asynchronous communication were used for online discussions and group work. The main outcome of the online component was an individual activity plan to help participants reflect on their teaching situation and to serve as a resource for the later face-to-face activities.

Bridge period: During this period between the two core components of the course, online support was provided to participants as they prepared for the face-to-face component.

Face-to-face workshop (core component): The face-to-face workshop consisted of classroom activities where participants presented and discussed their activity plans, practiced teaching principles and techniques, and further developed their activity plans.

Online resources: After completion of the course, additional online resources were available to help teachers transfer their new knowledge to their individual teaching settings.

(Adapted from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [2011],p.19.)

REFLECTION  QUESTIONS

• What access to technology do your students have?
• How are your technology skills? Do you need technology support? Where is it available?
• What tools would you use to decide which learning activities to offer in person and which to offer online?
• What is the nature of blended learning? What are the different components of your blended learning?
• Do you need instructional design support?

Resources for Further Reading

The following examples are in-practice blends of technology-enabled learning with in person teaching:

Bowman, J.D. (2017). Facilitating a class Twitter chat. Edutopia . Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/facilitating-class-twitter-chat

    All steps you need to prepare for and use Twitter as a way to engage students in learning activity discussions.

Wolpert-Gawron, H. (2017). Extending classroom management online. Edutopia . Retrieved from  https://www.edutopia.org/article/extending-classroom-management-online

    A case example of management strategies when you are using a blended classroom.

Guide to Blended Learning Copyright © 2018 by Commonwealth of Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

What is ‘blended learning’ and how can it benefit post-secondary students?

Associate Professor of Teaching, Geography Department, University of British Columbia

PhD Candidate, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia

Disclosure statement

Siobhán McPhee receives funding from internal teaching and learning grants within the University of British Columbia.

Micheal Jerowsky receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

University of British Columbia provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

University of British Columbia provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

Blended learning combines face-to-face and virtual instruction through the use of online learning technologies . Post-secondary students attend lectures in real-time, either virtually or in person, and this is accompanied by online learning activities completed outside of class time.

These blended classrooms can help support the educational needs of university students. When combined with traditional instruction, a judicious use of digital tools can encourage collaboration and personal responsibility for learning while allowing students to work at their own pace and adapt to rapidly changing technologies.

Incorporating technology into teaching and learning doesn’t mean throwing out previous approaches. The key is to adapt and create a new system of learning by designing classrooms that are more reflective of the world students will engage in once they graduate.

For universities to be more relevant to people’s daily lives , the walls of the university lecture room must be more porous, as students begin making critical connections between theory and application.

By adopting a blended approach to learning, educators support students’ transitions into the world of work, and how students draw upon and consolidate their learning in meaningful ways.

Best practices in blended learning

While many educators have embraced blended approaches to classroom design , this shifted to large-scale emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some discussions about emergency remote learning in the pandemic focused on different online tools and how or whether these tools can compensate for the loss of regular in-person education .

But in ordinary times, and when relying on best blended learning practices , teaching approaches should be rooted in learning objectives or students’ experiences — and these considerations aren’t the same as whether course components are online or in-person.

Read more: Machines can't 'personalize' education, only people can

Embracing a creative and flexible approach to learning can enable a new ecosystem of learning to develop, but this should be supported, rather than defined by, an instructor’s mode of delivery.

We advocate for empowering students by helping them to learn how to use new digital technologies so they can critically integrate and construct new knowledge for themselves while communicating their thoughts with teachers and peers .

Students’ responses to a blended classroom

We conducted a survey of university students taking a first-year geography course at the University of British Columbia . Instructors used different platforms / softwares to support ways of teaching (pedagogies) in the classroom:

Microsoft Teams supported student collaboration by providing a platform through which they could co-create and share documents, or video-conference with one another;

Tapestry , a platform that allows professors to create dynamic websites that link together media to help students learn about interconnected concepts, encouraged students to engage in self-directed learning;

Through Echoes , we created self-directed field trips students could run on their mobile device, and we used this to encourage students to explore course concepts in their local community;

We used Voice Flow to support students through the interactive chat bots that could help them navigate topics (like plagiarism or developing term paper ideas).

Real-time and self-paced course components

An entry survey of 332 students revealed the majority of students had used learning technologies before — overwhelmingly for communication or accessing course materials.

Generally, they were excited by learning new technologies and eager to develop new expertise. However, a lack of experience was also a source of stress and anxiety for some students who were concerned these might require additional time to learn and navigate.

The exit survey of 189 participants showed a blended approach to learning gave students a strong motivation to learn while working at their own pace. Overwhelmingly, a balance of real-time (synchronous) and self-paced (asynchronous) delivery helped reinforce course learning objectives.

Students found all of the tools relatively easy to use. They rated Microsoft Teams, used to navigate arranging meeting times and work on a weekly shared assignment, as most challenging. We believe these challenges were due to the nature of group work and collaboration, as our past experience indicates no matter what tool is used, students usually struggle with group assignments. Yet students said the most common benefit of Microsoft Teams was collaboration and social interaction outside of class.

The results of the exit survey provided a heartening picture of how educational technologies can support more student independence and responsibility. Overall, students felt there was a good balance between asynchronous and synchronous learning, and this helped them make connections between lectures, assignments and course learning materials while collaborating.

Insights for designing a blended classroom

It’s important for instructors to choose digital tools that are easy to use and navigate;

A blended classroom should be student-centred. The tools used in our course allowed students to work at their own pace, improved their ability to collaborate and communicate with others, and encouraged them to explore course concepts more fully;

Instructors should choose digital tools that support course learning objectives. A common trap is adapting a course to a specific tool. But in a successfully blended classroom, digital tools should enhance learning rather than restrict it.

Consider how to enhance students’ ability to use different tools so that they can adapt to rapidly changing labour markets and classrooms.

A blended approach to teaching and learning does not mean less teaching because now technology does it. Rather, educational technology can help foster better learning environments, and more engaged and flexible ways of teaching.

• Universities
• Online learning
• Digital literacy
• Post-secondary education
• Post-pandemic planning
• Blended learning
• Emergency remote teaching

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Finance Business Partner

Head of Evidence to Action

Theoretical Foundations for Blended Learning

• Open Access
• First Online: 01 November 2023

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Meifeng Liu 4 ,
• Guoqing Zhao 4 ,
• Zhixian Zhong 5 ,
• Jing Ma 6 &
• Wen Wang 7  

8550 Accesses

1 Citations

The practice of blended learning needs to be guided by blended learning theories and other related theories. The emergence and development of blended learning is the product of learning psychology and pedagogy in the information age.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

What Do We Mean by Blended Learning?

Blended Learning: The View Is Different from Student, Teacher, or Institution Perspective

Finding the Right Blend: Bringing Learning Back to Blended Learning

The practice of blended learning needs to be guided by blended learning theories and other related theories. The emergence and development of blended learning is the product of learning psychology and pedagogy in the information age. Therefore, the implementation of blended learning needs to be guided by systems theories, educational communication theories, learning theories, teaching theories, and curriculum theories. Certain learning modes, as well as related design and practice models, have emerged from blended learning research and practice. In this chapter, Sect.  1.1 briefly reviews the connotation and development of blended learning; Sect.  1.2 introduces the theoretical basis for the emergence and development of blended learning, pointing out that the increasing prevalence of blended learning is based on the development of teaching and learning in the information age; Sect.  1.3 explains the theoretical basis of blended learning and its guiding role for blended learning; Sect.  1.4 introduces several modes of blended learning and describes how these modes can seamlessly connect online and offline learning; Sect.  1.5 introduces the design models and implementation models of blended learning. As a systematic summary of relevant theories and research on blended learning, this chapter shows the connotations and characteristics of the theories and highlights their guiding significance and value for blended learning. This chapter can be used as a reference by teachers, instructional designers, educational technology personnel, educational administrators, and researchers.

1.1 The Concept of Blended Learning

Blended learning was first introduced in the field of corporate human resources training, aiming to overcome the limitations of time and space in face-to-face teaching, including small class size, poor timeliness, and high training cost. Since the 1960s, some large international companies, such as IBM and Boeing, have attempted to make it possible to train hundreds or even thousands of employees at the same time with the support of communication technology. Communication technology has been developing rapidly, evolving from the original mainframe computers and minicomputers to television media in the 1970s, CD-ROMs in the 1980s, and to various communication methods based on the Internet in this century. No matter how the technology has changed, the purpose of blended learning in corporations remains the same, that is to overcome the human resource constraints and maximize training effectiveness (Bersin 2004 ). The face-to-face learning component plays a vital role in training work skills and the inheritance of corporate culture. Therefore, integration of the technology-based learning mode and the advantages of the face-to-face mode has been adopted by corporate human resources training.

In the 1990s, Internet-based E-Learning had gradually become popular with the development of information technology. Due to the differences in the media, the approaches, and the target audience’s needs between face-to-face learning and E-Learning, the two learning methods, to a large extent, were separated during that period. The E-Learning mode provided learners with a richer technical environment and a more convenient way to obtain resources. However, the E-Learning mode also had some disadvantages, such as low engagement and a poor real-time interactive experience. It is recognized that students have difficulties in completing learning tasks independently in the unsupervised network environment. As a result, a more effective and flexible blended learning method has been applied in teaching and learning by education researchers and practitioners. “Blended learning” has been proposed as a proper term. Initially, blended learning was considered as a simple combination of E-Learning and face-to-face learning, as moving classroom teaching to the Internet via information technology, or as supplementary extra-curricular learning tasks. Perceptions about blended learning have gradually changed; now it is seen as a learning mode that can improve classroom learning. An increasing number of researchers have begun to realize that the word “blended” should be considered as “integration” and “fusion”, instead of simply referring to “combination”. Blended learning is not limited to merely integrating face-to-face and online learning environments, but is a systematic reconstruction of multiple elements including learning resources, teaching strategies, learning environments, learning tools, and teaching and learning models.

From a historical perspective, as a social activity, education is certainly affected by social productivity, particularly technological advancement. Communication technology is the most important technology that affects education. Its development has revolutionized education. In primitive society, education was combined with life and labor without the distinction between formal and informal. Body language, as the dominant means of communication, aimed to maintain livelihoods. In an agricultural society, the dominant communication means used in education were word of mouth and hand-compiled books. Due to different needs in the society, formal and informal education was distinguished. Formal education was mainly in government and private schools, where teaching was conducted in either a centralized or a decentralized manner. Moreover, personalized learning was adopted without distinction among classes and school years. Informal education referred to the development of labor skills by using scenario-based learning for agriculture, and apprenticeship, etc. In industrialized society, word-of-mouth as the means of communication was adopted in education, though the bulk-printing of books and basic computer technology were also included. Due to the need for a large amount of standardized manpower, formal education shifted from the elite to the public, with classroom teaching as the main teaching mode. As a result, standardization and large-scale education came into being, such as schools, school years, curriculum, and courses. At the same time, the focus of informal education changed from labor skills in agricultural society to work skills, while the teaching strategy changed from scenario-based learning for agriculture to factory apprenticeship.

In the information society, information and communication technology are the foundation of the society; information resources are the major development resources; and digital industries are the leading field in the society. Information, together with matter and energy, constitutes the three key indispensable resources. Multimedia technology and Internet technology are widely integrated in education. Formal education has changed from popularization in industrial society to universalization in the digital society. In addition, with the learner-centered perspective, formal education has maintained its scalability and added the personalization. The teaching strategy has changed from face-to-face classroom teaching in the industrial society to the integration of scheduled face-to-face learning and flexible technology-enabled learning, such as a hybrid form that merges physical space and virtual cyberspace. With the development of emerging information technologies, such as cloud computing, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and biological computer technology, physical space and virtual cyberspace will be integrated more deeply. As a result, education has the potential to satisfy the learning need for everyone and can happen anytime and anywhere, allowing the seamless integration between formal and informal education, supporting personalized and lifelong learning. In this way, learning can move towards a new ecology of ubiquitous learning.

1.2 The Rationale for the Emergence and Development of Blended Learning

Blended learning is a learning mode that integrates face-to-face learning and technology-enabled learning. In order to achieve optimal learning effect under specific conditions, blended learning reconstructs the core elements of education, including goals, content (resources), media, methods, evaluation, and teaching teams, based on the nature of education, the laws of education and learning, and required future manpower. As a product of societal, economic, and technological development, it is certain that blended learning will become the new norm of education. Blended learning can not only meet the needs of societal development for education, but also meet the requirements of individual development. The emergence and development of blended learning has a solid theoretical foundation in psychology and pedagogy.

1.2.1 Psychological Rationale

Blended learning attends to both the commonality and individuality of students

Psychological research points out that people have common and individual traits, some highly relevant to teaching, while some not very relevant. Within the common and individual traits related to student learning, those that are not related to the content of a particular discipline are commonly referred to as common traits and individual traits of student learning in psychology.

The fact that students have learning-related common traits provides foundations for face-to-face teaching and online synchronous teaching, while students’ learning-related individual traits demonstrates the role that E-Learning can play. Therefore, the emergence and development of blended learning is historically inevitable. In the following part, the common features, and individual characteristics of student learning in a general sense will be briefly described so as to gain a clearer understanding of how to design good blended learning accordingly.

Characteristics of common traits

The psychological development of an individual is sequential and phased, therefore students in different age ranges will show corresponding and common general characteristics, including stage characteristics of cognitive development, psychosocial development, and moral development.

Concerning the characteristics of cognitive development , the well-known psychologist Jean Piaget proposed the four Piagetian stages of cognitive development, namely Sensorimotor Stage (0–2 years old), Preoperational Stage (2–7 years old), Concrete Operations Stage (7–11 years old), and Formal Operations Stage (11 years old and later). Identifying learner characteristics of cognitive development at each stage is the key foundation to instructional design.

Regarding the characteristics of psycho-social development , Erik H. Erikson developed his eight stages of personality development that integrate self-development and environmental influences (Erikson  1964 ). Trust and Mistrust (birth to 18 months): at this stage, children feel secure if they receive love and affection in a stable and predictable environment. This security allows them to trust others, otherwise babies will mistrust. Autonomy and Doubt (18 months to 3 years old): at this stage, children who are allowed freedom to explore, within limits, learn self-confidence, otherwise they may become discouraged and begin to feel worthless. Initiative and Guilt (3 to 6/7 years old): at this stage, children are bundles of energy, full of imagination and initiative. They begin to master peer relationships and language. If they are not encouraged to participate, they may feel guilty about the extent of their own ambitions and fail to develop the skills to play and work with others. Industry and Inferiority (6/7 to 12 years old): children at this stage begin to undertake some tasks independently and work together with others. If teachers can encourage and praise them, it is more likely that children will develop a sense of diligence and a proactive personality, otherwise, they are prone to develop a sense of inferiority. Identity and Identity Confusion (12 to 18 years old): children in this period start to develop self-identity. In other words, individuals try to establish a coherent sense of self (including his/her physical appearance, previous situations, status-quo, the limitations of environment and conditions, and the prospect of his/her future) as a whole. If children are provided with the right guidance from teachers and parents, they will successfully construct their self-identity, otherwise confusion of self-identity may appear. Intimacy and Isolation (18 to 30 years old): this period is the stage of love, marriage, and early family life. Youths seek to develop intimate personal relationships with others without losing their self-identity. If they fail to do that, they will develop a sense of loneliness. Generativity and Stagnation (30 to 60 years old): this is the challenge of the middle years of life. Raising children, creative activities, and community service are ways people give to others in this stage. Being unable to contribute in these ways can bring about boredom, restlessness, stagnation, and a feeling that life is meaningless. Integrity and Despair (after age 60): being able to look back on life with contentment and few regrets is the main task of Stage 8. Integrity involves having a good perspective on life in one’s final years. People who struggled through life without feeling a part of it may end up facing death in despair.

According to Erickson, there are corresponding key influencers in each of the above stages, namely: mother, father, family members, neighbors, as well as school teachers and students, peers and small group members, friends, colleagues, spouses, and the whole human race (Erikson  1964 ). Characteristics of psycho-social development influence the establishment of personality. How people interact with others and things affects the development of their personalities.

Regarding the characteristics of moral development , Lawrence Kohlberg proposed three moral levels and six stages of moral reasoning. The three levels are pre-conventional morality, conventional morality, and post-conventional morality. Each level has two stages. These stages can serve as reference for the development of students’ morality (Shaffer and Kipp 2012 ).

The characteristics of cognitive development affect the design of the difficulty level of learning objectives, the abstraction of the content, the format of learning resources, and the design of learning activities. The characteristics of psycho-social development may constrain the design of emotional interaction between teacher-student, student–student, teams, activities, as well as feedback and assessment; while the characteristics of moral development affect the design of learning activity guidelines.

In a society that promotes lifelong learning, learners can range from primary to middle school students, college students to the elderly. All learners have the above-mentioned characteristics of cognitive, psycho-social, and moral development related to learning as common features. For learners of the same age, such common features can serve as the basic guidelines for designing learning objectives, content, resources, activities, collaboration, interaction, feedback, and assessment in face-to-face or real-time online learning. Yet, for the learners of different age groups, self-paced online learning might work better. Therefore, it is necessary to develop blended learning.

Individual traits

Human development involves not only common features, but also individual characteristics. In other words, people have individual differences which are influenced by genetics, social living conditions, education, and other factors in their process of socialization. Some are related to learning, including differentiated traits like learning interests and learning styles.

Learning interest demonstrates learners’ willingness to learn. Psychologists divide learning interests into personal interests and situational interests. Personal interests are idiosyncratic and relatively stable, referring to a person’s tendency to pay attention to specific stimuli, objects, and topics. Situational interests, on the other hand, are responsive. When situational interests are “triggered”, they can attract learners’ attention in a short period of time. If situational interests are “maintained”, they can promote students to stay focused on the same task or topic over a long period of time (Ormrod 1999 ).

Generally, interests can facilitate information processing more efficiently (Ormrod 1999 ). In addition, to some extent, interests and learning mutually reinforce each other. When students experience a sense of competence, their learning interest may increase. Even if students are not initially interested in some learning content or an activity, they may develop an interest after experiencing success. Therefore, it is necessary to understand interests of learners, to trigger and maintain learners’ personal and situational interests, to have a variety of teaching modes, and an autonomous learning atmosphere. All of these key elements can be included in blended learning.

Learning style refers to the psychological characteristics indicating learners’ perception of stimuli and their responses to the stimuli. In other words, learners tend to choose special strategies in their learning process. The following section mainly discusses learners’ different needs for learning environments and their different cognitive styles.

Learners’ different needs for learning environments

Affective needs refer to learners’ need for encouragement and comfort in their learning process. Social needs refer to learners’ need for peer discussion. Environmental and emotional needs refer to learners’ preference towards environment and emotions when learning, such as studying in a quiet environment, having snacks when reading, walking back and forth when thinking, or having a certain efficient learning period.

Differences in cognitive styles

Cognitive style refers to the strategies learners are used to adopting when they perceive, recall, and reflect. It shows the individual differences of learners in the process of organizing and processing information and reflects the different characteristics of learners in perception, memory, reflection, and problem-solving abilities. Each learner can have a variety of cognitive styles at the same time and utilize different combinations of them in the process of learning. Mainly, four types of cognitive styles have an impact on instructional design: the preferred sensory channel for perceiving or receiving stimuli, field-independent and field-dependent, holistic and sequential, and reflective and impulsive.

The preferred sensory channel for perceiving or receiving stimuli refers to the sensory channels that learners prefer in learning, including visual, auditory, and tactile/ kinesthetic.

Field-dependent and field-independent . The concept of the field dependence–independence cognitive style emerged as a result of the work of Witkin. A relatively field-independent person is likely to overcome the organization of the field, or to restructure it, when presented with a field having a dominant organization, whereas the relatively field-dependent person tends to adhere to the organization of the field as given (Witkin et al. 1977 ). Witkin et al. ( 1977 ) claimed that field independent individuals rely on an internal frame of reference, while field dependent individuals rely on an external frame of reference. Whilst field dependent individuals have a preference to learn in groups and to interact frequently with one another as well as the teacher, field independent learners may respond better to more independent and more individualized approaches. Also, field independent learners are more likely to have self-defined goals and to respond to intrinsic reinforcement, whilst field dependent learners require more extrinsic reinforcement and more structured work by the teacher. Whereas the field independent learners prefer to structure their own learning and to develop their own learning strategies, field dependent learners may need more assistance in problem-solving strategies or more exact definitions of performance outcomes (Witkin et al. 1977 ). Field independent individuals are more capable of dealing with situations requiring impersonal analysis, whilst field dependent individuals are better equipped to deal with situations requiring social perceptiveness and interpersonal skills.

Holistic and sequential . When dealing with learning tasks, individuals have two tendencies: one is a holistic, hypothesis-oriented strategy, which deals with tasks as a whole and tests relatively more complex hypotheses at the same time; the other is a sequential, fact-oriented, step-by-step strategy, which tests only one limited hypothesis at a time. Holistic learners are good at solving problems from a comprehensive and holistic perspective. They prefer to grasp the overall situation, and then find a breakthrough to solve problems, or solve complex problems first. They have high intuition and ambiguity, but low accuracy and profundity. In contrast, sequential learners use the “operational” method to learn. They are used to dividing problems into details to understand them and solving problems step by step, according to a logical sequence. They are also good at discovering the differences between different entities.

Reflective and impulsive . The concept was originally introduced by Kagan et al. ( 1964 ) to describe the individual differences in the speed with which decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty to employ impulsive or reflective cognitive tempos.

Impulsive children respond quickly with short latencies and numerous errors, while reflective children tend to inhibit their initial responses and to reflect upon the correctness of their responses, thereby exhibiting longer latencies and fewer errors.

Reflective children tend to analyze stimuli and organize them into detail components and, accordingly, perform better on tasks requiring attention to details. Impulsive children, on the other hand, tend to focus more on the stimulus as a whole and thus perform better on tasks requiring a more global analysis.

Since different learning activities require different psychological characteristics, it can only be said that a certain tendency is more suitable for a certain learning context, rather than that a learner with a certain tendency is necessarily smarter than one with another tendency.

In a relatively flexible and autonomous learning mode, blended learning can provide students with more choices in terms of the learning environment and learning partners, giving feedback via the system, resources via various media (such as visual, audio and text media), and allowing students to follow at their own pace. Thus, blended learning can meet the needs of students with different learning styles.

Blended learning provides personalized learning paths or pacing for students with different potential. The previous subsection discussed the common features and individual characteristics related to learning in general. To account for these characteristics simultaneously, a flexible learning mode like blended learning is needed and will become more prevalent. In fact, in psychology, some individual characteristics of learners, such as the disciplinary learning potential, learning needs, and learning competence of different students, are closely related to subject learning, but are difficult to be taken into consideration by face-to-face teaching alone; thus they would benefit from online teaching.

Multiple intelligence structure

Howard Gardner, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, proposed the Multiple Intelligences Theory after years of research. He defined intelligence as a “biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture”. On this basis, he proposed nine different types of intelligence, namely, linguistic intelligence, logical/mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, naturalist intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, and existential intelligence. Everyone was born with more than eight types of intelligence that are both independent and interrelated and has different strengths and weaknesses in intelligence. When solving problems and creating products, people combine and use these intelligences differently, which gives rise to each person’s different and individualized multiple intelligence structure. For students, each subject may tap multiple intelligences and involve their various combinations, which explains why they are talented and full of potential in one subject but lacking in potential in another subject.

Gardner’s “Multiple Intelligences Theory” helps educators to be aware of the multiple differences among students, and explains why some students can learn subjects they are good at easily and fast, but relatively hard and slowly when they learn the subjects that they are not good at. Online learning has the advantage to make full use of “multiple intelligences” to teach, to enable students to have their individualized learning paths, and to help students learn at their own pace (Zhang 2002 ).

Learning needs

Learning needs refer to the gap between what the learner wants to get out of the learning experience and their current state of learning and development. Due to learners’ differences in terms of their living environments, future jobs and positions, and their development potential, differences can be found in learners’ learning expectations.

Meanwhile, since the current learning levels of learners are also different, their learning needs vary too. Due to the large number of people in traditional classrooms, teaching is at the same pace and teachers cannot take into account the learning needs of different students. However, blended learning, which adopts a learning mode that combines “online and offline”, can expand the time and space of learning and thus meet the learning needs of different students. With a variety of learning resources, students can not only review and relearn, but also learn more content more deeply.

Learning competence

Learning competence refers to people’s ability to acquire knowledge, work on tasks, and seek development (Liu et al.  2018 ). Learning competence includes general abilities and specific abilities (Gao 1989 ; Zeng and Cao 2005 ). General ability is a comprehensive ability that is applicable to all or most studies. Although it is not discipline-specific, it has an impact on discipline learning and has the characteristics of transferability, universality, wide application, and stability. Yin and Bi ( 2000 ) categorized general learning abilities into basic abilities and comprehensive abilities, and proposed that the basic abilities of learners include observation ability, memory ability, thinking ability, and expression ability, while comprehensive abilities include self-learning ability, problem-solving ability, experimental ability, and creativity. It is also proposed that learners’ basic abilities and comprehensive abilities are cultivated through the learning of professional knowledge of a discipline, and can be applied to new learning, serving not only as the basis, but also the purpose of learning.

Special abilities are the abilities demonstrated in professional activities, such as disciplinary abilities. Lin ( 1997 ) believes that the intelligence and ability of learners should be organically combined with general abilities of the discipline, such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing in language subjects. The combination of discipline-related intelligence and competencies, strategies, and methods should also be included. Gardner’s ( 1993 ) multiple intelligence structure links disciplines to the intellectual structure of learners. He stated that everyone has a different match from the eight or nine types of intelligence, which explains why people perform differently in different subject areas.

There are differences in general learning abilities and the disciplinary competence of leaners, which directly affect the way, the efficiency, and the quality of their completion of disciplinary learning activities. Blended learning can not only provide a variety of learning paths and various learning support methods, but also enable learners to review, repeat, or learn more things, helping them to exercise and develop their own learning ability. Therefore, blended learning can resolve learners’ differences in learning ability and facilitate learners to better complete their learning tasks.

1.2.2 Pedagogical Rationale

Blended learning takes into account common features and individual characteristics of learners and enables learners with potential in different disciplines to learn through different learning paths at their own pace. Meanwhile, the information society requires education to promote the holistic and personalized development among students, which serves as an important pedagogical basis for the emergence and development of blended learning.

Blended learning realizes the essence of education—to promote “the development of each student” . Education is a social activity in which educators should have a positive impact on students. Having an accurate perspective on students is very important to systematically develop education. Likewise, such a perspective is crucial to realize the essence of education—“to promote the development of each student and improve the life quality and value of each one”. According to Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, although students’ intellectual structures vary, they all have unique potentials, which means that there are no students that cannot learn, only different students. At the same time, there are differences among students in terms of learning foundation, learning speed, learning interest, learning motivation, learning needs, and learning ability. Therefore, if schools can provide multiple development approaches for each student, it is possible to further develop each student’s superior intelligence, thus encouraging their learning motivation and facilitating the development of their weaker intelligence area to a certain extent. In this way, each student can enjoy a successful learning experience at school and contribute to the achievement of the educational purpose, which is to promote the development of every student.

Promoting the development of each student requires schools to carry out customized and individualized teaching and learning. Teaching and learning needs to be tailored to the unique needs of students. However, the realization of real personalized teaching and learning is a huge challenge for schools. It is not feasible to equip each student with a tutor, yet the development of technology enables the possibility to promote the personalized development of students. Learning analysis based on big data, adaptive systems, and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC), has created conditions for providing students with suitable learning content and learning methods. “In the age of technology, people are more likely to pursue learning on their own and will not feel the sense of failure that comes when everyone is supposed to learn the same thing at the same time” (Collins and Halverson 2009 , p. 110). Moreover, the development of information technology facilitates a variety of learning methods, from E-Learning to U-learning, which enable students to have more space to learn outside the classroom.

In recent years, scholars have examined how technology can facilitate personalized teaching and learning. For instance, Wei et al. ( 2019 ) identified seven behaviors of students in the classroom by using intelligent learning analysis technology, namely, listening to class, looking around, raising hands, sleeping, standing, reading, and writing. This technology can offer timely and accurate feedback on the learning of each student in the classroom, which can help teachers enhance teaching strategies, and optimize classroom learning and management. This will improve the efficiency of teaching and learning and contribute to the reform of personalized teaching and learning.

Since 2016, Tsinghua University has launched a smart teaching and learning tool—Rain Classroom. The tool covers every data collection session, from “before class” to “during class” to after class”. The back-end of the tool records detailed data of teaching and learning behavior, such as the number of students participating in the classroom, the timeslot that students enter the classroom, the slides they fail to understand, the questions that are answered incorrectly, the frequency that a preview video is watched before the class, and the completion and correct rate of the after-class homework. Such data can clearly restore most of the teaching and learning process in the real classroom. Using such data for data analysis and mining can support teachers to enhance the teaching process and help students to enhance the learning process. By adopting machine learning and artificial intelligence, the panoramic recording of big data will provide the foundation for teachers and students to make decisions in a scientific fashion, including individually analyzing past teaching and learning processes, objectively reflecting on the current teaching and learning situation, and proactively arranging future teaching and learning (Wang 2017 ).

Blended learning is one of the important approaches for schools to achieve student-centered personalized teaching and learning. On the one hand, blended learning allows teachers to implement various student-centered offline learning modes so that they can have interaction and communication with students. On the other hand, with the advantages of promoting personalized development among students, blended learning can take advantage of emerging technologies to break the limitations of time and space for providing students with personalized learning. By integrating online and offline learning, blended learning aims to “deliver ‘appropriate’ skills to ‘appropriate’ learners at ‘appropriate’ times by applying ‘appropriate’ learning techniques that fit ‘appropriate’ learning styles” (Singh and Reed 2001 ). In this way, learners will be able to have a personalized learning experience rather than learning in a one-size-fits-all classroom (Horn and Staker   2017 ).

Therefore, blended learning meets the essential requirements of education, follows the fundamental principles of education, and will become increasingly more common in education.

Blended learning helps to cultivate talents with twenty-first century core competences . So far, human beings have witnessed hunter-gatherer society, agricultural society, industrial society, and the move towards an information society (Toffler 1990 ). In the agricultural society, education was through apprenticeship or one-to-one tutoring, generally with only one room as the school building. In the industrial society, in order to meet the needs of large-scale teaching and learning, modern schools emerged and the education system transformed into “Factory Models of Schools” (Duan et al. 2009 ). In the twenty-first century, with the fast knowledge update and the diverse ways of knowledge acquisition, traditional teaching and learning are unable to adapt to the increasingly complex living and working environments. This is because society has put forward higher requirements for talents in terms of creativity, diversity, and individualization.

In the era of rapid change, the education field has been changing in order to cope with the development of the new era. Countries and international educational organizations have a common challenge to understand what kinds of talents to be trained for the new century. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the talents to be cultivated should have the following characteristics. The first is reflection, a relatively complex mental process including metacognition, creativity, and critical thinking. The second is the ability to cope with complex problems and unpredictable scenarios. According to the EU, the expectation is to cultivate talents with competences including critical thinking, problem-solving, teamwork, communication and negotiation skills, creativity, cross-cultural communication, and life-long learning (European Commission 2018 ). Regarding the development of core competences in Chinese students, it is expected that students will have six core competences, namely, humanity, scientific spirit, ability to learn, healthy life, responsibility, and innovation (Research Group on Core Literacy 2016 ).

By comparing the eight frameworks for core competences in the world, Dutch scholar Voogt and others came to the following conclusions: ① Four core competences are advocated by all the frameworks, namely collaboration, communication, ICT-related competences, and social and/or cultural awareness (including citizenship); ② The other four core competences advocated by most frameworks are creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, and the capacity to develop high-quality products or productivity. These eight competences are the common pursuit of human beings in the information age and are called “the world common core competences” (Voogt and Roblin 2012 ). The above-mentioned competences can be further refined into the following four, namely, collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking, which are the “twenty-first century 4Cs”. The world common core competences are the common pursuits of human development goals in the information age, which reflect educational trends in the world.

Blended learning has the advantages of offline, face-to-face classroom teaching and the advantages of online learning, such as various learning models, self-paced learning, idea sharing, resource sharing, and collaborative, inquiry-based problem solving. Blended learning can promote the development of students’ autonomous learning ability, identification ability, critical thinking skills, and creativity, which are the talents needed in an information society.

Researchers advocate that blended learning can contribute to the cultivation of twenty-first century core competences in students. Zhang et al. ( 2019 ) used the Wisdom Tree platform to establish a blended learning model based on the Small Private Online Course (SPOC), and found that students’ autonomous learning ability and learning efficiency were enhanced by adopting this model. Wang et al. ( 2018 ) conducted a survey on college students who participated in blended learning courses based on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC). Their study found that this model improved students’ language expression, autonomy, and teamwork, strengthened the teacher-student and student–student communication, and thus improved learning effectiveness. These studies suggest that blended learning plays an important role in enhancing students’ problem-solving skills, teamwork, and other higher-order thinking skills.

Apparently, blended learning can help to cultivate talents with twenty-first century skills. To achieve this goal, blended learning needs to utilize the teacher-led and student-centered learning model to promote students’ autonomy and provide authentic problems to cultivate students’ problem solving skills. Also, blended learning needs to integrate the advantages of various teaching modes to provide students with appropriate learning paths and focus on collaborative learning to cultivate their collaboration and communication skills. Moreover, students should be offered a variety of learning tools and sufficient technical resources for self-paced learning so that students can become lifelong learners. The cultivation of students’ critical thinking and innovation skills should be integrated in the teaching and learning process. Nowadays, with rich online resources, students should be exposed to different ideas and be offered with more opportunities for hands-on practice and expression of their opinions with proper guidance.

All colleges and universities in China now consider blended learning as a development direction of educational reform. Colleges have started to use the established online resources, such as Chinese University MOOC, Chaoxing, and Zhihui Shu (Wisdom Tree) to support blended learning. More importantly, colleges need to choose or establish their own learning management systems, develop online resources, and implement multi-modal blended learning, so that blended learning can be widely adopted in all fields and disciplines of higher education, thus contributing to the reform of teaching and learning. The sixth part of this handbook provides helpful examples of blended learning in colleges and universities.

According to the theoretical foundations in psychology and pedagogy, blended learning should have face-to-face and online learning closely coordinated and seamlessly connected, considering the common features and the individual characteristics of students. Additionally, blended learning should respect the common development principles of learners at different stages and meet their individual learning needs. Therefore, blended learning requires a diversified design of learning activities and a hierarchical design of learning resources to allow different learning paces and paths, as well as personalized guidance for learners, according to their learning effectiveness, so that their learning potential can be fully developed. Meanwhile, blended learning can adopt more teaching strategies, such as independent learning, collaboration, and inquiry, to cultivate students’ core competences in the information age.

1.3 The Theoretical Basis of Blended Learning

To sum up, blended learning conforms to the laws of psychology, the nature of education, and its future trends. Blended learning is beneficial to cultivating individualized talents required by social development. The next question is how to design ideal blended learning. This section will illustrate the theoretical basis for identifying the ideal instructional design of blended learning, including systems theory, educational communication theory, learning and teaching theory, and curriculum theory.

1.3.1 Systems Theory and the Guidance for Blended Learning

Systems thinking was introduced by the Austrian American theoretical biologist, L. Von. Bertalanffy, in 1932. By using the concept of system as the focus, systems thinking explores the basic framework and methods that can tackle the complexity and dynamics of a system in a more appropriate and effective way. It emphasizes considering issues as a system. In other words, the components and the interrelationships and interactions among these components and their interactions with the environment should be considered, and the system should be processed as a whole to generate an overall effect of “1 + 1 > 2”.

The basic viewpoints of systems thinking are as follows: problems should be addressed as a whole; the emphasis is on the interconnection and interaction among systems, components and environments; the structure of the system is the internal basis for the system to maintain integrity and certain functionality; systems are hierarchical—a system itself is also a component part of a larger system, while a component is a subsystem made up of components of a lower layer; systems are dynamic, purposeful, and open; and exchange with the environment on matter, energy and information (Dou 1988 ).

Systems thinking is an important guiding ideology of blended learning. Blended learning considers online and offline learning as a whole. In other words, it is a process of design, development, implementation, evaluation, feedback, and refinement of online and offline learning. This process needs good planning and seamless connection between online and offline learning. Meanwhile, a good instructional design of blended learning requires systems thinking to involve the participation of several parties (such as content experts, technicians, graphic designers, instructional design experts, teachers, and students); the variety of teaching and learning modes and process (such as learning objectives, learning content, the composition of learners and their characteristics, online and offline learning activities, learning space, other teaching strategies, assessment and evaluation, teachers, learning support staff, the teaching and learning environment, and community). Moreover, the implementation of blended learning needs to consider learning support, online and offline learning activities, communication with peers and communities, the tracking of the learning process, and according personalized adjustment based on data analytics. In addition, the evaluation of blended learning needs to integrate online learning data and offline classroom performance to consider the relationship between students’ overall development and personality development. Several factors need to be balanced when focusing on learning outcomes and the learning process.

Systems Approach and the implications for blended learning

The scientific systems approach, or a systems approach, is a method according to the systematisms of things. It examines the research object as a whole with organization, structure, and function (Li et al. 2007 ). To be specific, it comprehensively examines research objects from the aspects of mutual relationship between the system and the components, between components and components, and between the system and the external environment. The general process of applying a systems approach to solve problems includes five basic steps: define the problem and set the goal, identify solutions, select the strategies, implement the solution, and evaluate the effectiveness. This problem-solving approach focuses on situational analysis and a holistic view, as well as relationship analysis. It is the general approach to support the whole process and the sub-processes of design, implementation, evaluation, feedback, and improvement in blended learning. Further, the application of the systems approach in blended learning can ensure optimal learning effectiveness.

The Theory of Complex Systems and the implications for blended learning

The Theory of Complex Systems is a series of theories about complex systems and is the further development of the Theory of General Systems. The Theory of General Systems refers to human-made established systems with central control mechanisms, stable structures, and predictable changes, while the Theory of Complex Systems focuses on complex systems without central control mechanisms and stable structures. Such systems are not designed, but evolve from the interactions between many dynamic components at the group level. The evolving process is a bottom-up process, as a self-organized process from messy to organized at the group level with numerous unpredictable possibilities. Along with the bottom-up process, the system will develop a top-down regulation process. Thus there is tension between the bottom-up process and the top-down process of the system. When this tension is directed toward adaptation to the environment, it not only generates many possible changes, but also filters the possibilities according to adaptability requirement, thus guiding the system to evolve and finally develop a system structure and operation mechanism that is adaptive to the environment.

In fact, teaching and learning is a complex system in itself. Blended learning is more complex than pure face-to-face or online learning. The goal of blended learning is to integrate the advantages of various teaching modes to achieve optimal learning effectiveness. How to integrate various teaching modes to develop an optimal teaching and learning system is particularly important because such teaching and learning systems include various elements, complex relationships, and unpredictable evolution processes. Students and teachers who pursue personalized teaching and learning play an active role. The required complex teaching system can be self-formed through the self-adaptation of the bottom-up generative process to the top-down environmental requirement and can result in the integration of various teaching modes. For blended learning, it is essential to provide teachers and students with freedom to choose teaching and learning modes independently so as to encourage their enthusiasm, but also to regulate the teaching and learning environment according to expected learning outcomes. By maintaining a reasonable tension, it is possible to integrate a variety of teaching modes and develop an optimal teaching and learning system, thus achieving optimal learning effectiveness.

1.3.2 Educational Communication Theory and Its Implications for Blended Learning

Educational communication is a communication activity between educators and learners in which educators select appropriate content according to the learning objectives and transmit knowledge, skills, ideas, and concepts to specific learners through effective media channels. The essence is to make communication and interaction more effective. Therefore, the theoretical framework of educational communication, which appeared before educational technology, can be used to interpret blended learning, as they both pursue the optimal effectiveness of teaching and learning interaction. With the development of psychology and the increasing recognition of constructivist epistemology, it is gradually realized that educational communication is a multi-directional interactive activity in which ideas and meanings are constructed by learners as subjects instead of being transmitted, thus adding new meaning to educational communication theories.

Communication channel selection and blended learning

Educational communication is a system mainly consisting of four components: educators, educational information, educational media, and learners. The four components interact and develop the following six relationships: educators and learners, educators and educational information, educators and educational media, learners and educational information, learners and educational media, and educational information and educational media (Nan and Li 2005 ). Dealing well with these six relationships is very important to ensure and improve the effectiveness of educational communication.

When educators and learners are identified in the system, the educational information will be provided accordingly. Among all the components, educational media is the most active and abundant, because most forms of media can store and transmit plenty of information, though the effectiveness of different communication channels may vary. This leads to the issue of the choice of communication channels, or even the simultaneous use of multiple channels. On the one hand, some specific content needs to use the most suitable transmission channel to achieve better communication effectiveness. On the other hand, according to constructivism and connectivism (see the Learning Theory section), there are meanings distributed across the connections among different nodes. For learners, they can adopt different educational media to gain information, support their scaffolding, and develop their own cognitive framework and understanding.

There are a variety of communication channels in blended learning that can meet different needs, including different subject matter, students’ learning styles, and students’ meaning construction, and thus enhance communication effectiveness. The relationship of educational media channels with educators, learners, and educational information respectively needs to be well aligned in order to achieve high-quality educational communication effectiveness.

Educational communication model and blended learning

The educational communication model is a theoretically simplified version that replicates the reality of educational communication. It briefly outlines the phenomenon of educational communication and the composition and relationship of various components in the process of educational communication. This model reveals the essential characteristics of educational communication.

The basic model of educational communication

The basic model of educational communication is developed according to the four components of the educational communication system and the important influences of feedback and environment on communication effectiveness. These four components are educators, educational information, educational media, and learners. This model reveals that the effectiveness of educational communication is the result of the interaction and interconnection of all components involved in the communication process instead of being determined by one component. Therefore, the various components in the communication process and the relationships among them should be considered in a holistic manner.

The typical model of educational communication

Based on the basic model of educational communication, whether educators and learners are physically together determines the development of a communication model of face-to-face education or distance education (Wei and Zhong 1992 ).

With the development of technology, the communication model of distance education based on the Internet has gradually become the mainstream. Information suppliers, i.e., information sources, are more diverse. It is more convenient to identify the characteristics of information recipients through big data. According to those relatively accurate data, information or content will be encoded more appropriately.

Means of transmission will be more abundant. Information recipients also have the right to choose. Given various decoding methods, and the different decoding of groups and individuals, interaction, communication and feedback can happen in a timely and multi-directional manner, making the meaning constructed by information recipients more diverse. Accordingly, the communication model of distance education based on the Internet is becoming increasingly diversified.

Blended learning involves face-to-face communication modes and distance, particularly Internet-based communication modes. Its communication processes, such as design, implementation, evaluation, feedback, and improvement, as well as functional elements, should not only follow the steps of these communication models and involve all elements, but also conform to all the principles of communication.

1.3.3 Learning Theories and Their Guidance on Blended Learning

Since the emergence of psychology in 1879, learning theories have gradually developed and resulted in many representative genres. Although the genres have distinctive viewpoints, all of them mainly explore three fundamental aspects: the essence of learning, the learning process, and the principles and conditions of learning (Chen and Liu 2019 ). An in-depth understanding of these theories and the application will help us fully understand the definition, nature, functions, and conditions of learning, thus providing a suitable theoretical basis for different blended learning scenarios.

Behaviorism and its applicable teaching scenarios

In the first half of the twentieth century, behaviorism became dominant in psychology. The core idea of behaviorism is that learning is the result of connections between stimuli and responses through repetitive attempts (Watson and Kimble 2017 ). If the desired response is reinforced in time, it is easier to develop stimulus–response connections and result in learning. The connections between stimuli and responses are emphasized by not only the classical conditioning theory by Ivan Pavlov and John Broadus Watson and the connectionism learning theory by Edward Thorndike, but also the operant conditioning theory by Burrhus Frederic Skinner. Later, some behaviorists began to absorb the ideas of the cognitive school and Albert Bandura’s social learning theory is an example. He believed that learning in essence refers to the process in which individuals obtain some new behavioral responses or amend existing behavioral responses by observing the behaviors of others and their reinforcement results.

Regarding the teaching content of each discipline, there is always something that does not require much thinking but needs to be remembered by students (such as English vocabulary, mathematical symbols, etc.), or something that has been approved by thinking but requires skilled memory and fast responses, or some motor skills. This is the teaching scenario where behaviorist learning theory can come into play. Behaviorism has been playing an important role in all teaching processes, including blended learning.

Cognitivism and its educational applications

In the 1960s and 1970s, behaviorist learning theories showed more and more limitations and could not explain how people learn through internal psychological mechanisms. More and more psychologists began to adopt a cognitivist approach, focusing on learners’ internal processing of knowledge. Based on behaviorist theories of stimulus–response connections, cognitivism emphasizes that the stimulus–response connections are resulted from the formation of cognitive structures, and claims that learning, in essence, is the process in which learners actively form cognitive structures in their minds through understanding. Cognitive learning theories mainly include Jerome Seymour Bruner’s discovery theory, David Ausubel’s assimilation theory, and Robert Mills Gagné’s information processing theory.

The philosophical basis of the cognitivist learning theory is objective epistemology, which recognizes the existence of objective truth or absolute knowledge. The theory determines that teaching, with students’ cognitive structure as the basis, is to persuade students to accept the newly taught knowledge and to incorporate it into their original knowledge structure, which then either expands or changes into a new one. This is how learning occurs.

Blended learning can take advantage of dual or multiple channels to gain a better understanding of students’ cognitive structures. It does so by adopting advanced learning analytics technology, such as big data or data mining, and analyzing the online learning trajectory of learners and the dialogue texts of activities, together with scales and questionnaires. This serves as the basis for the design of blended learning. At the same time, cognitivism emphasizes that learning is a meaningful process in which organisms actively form new cognitive structures. Therefore, the instructional plans of blended learning should be designed to meet the needs of different students so as to arouse students’ learning enthusiasm and enable them to internalize external objective stimuli into their internal cognitive structures through autonomous learning and teacher guidance. Cognitivism emphasizes the need to adopt flexible teaching procedures and instructional modes according to students’ age and experience as well as the nature of the discipline. Thus, in blended learning, appropriate arrangements should be based on learners’ mental development level and cognitive representation, so that they can make connections between their prior knowledge and experience and their new knowledge.

Learning perspective from constructivism and its applications to teaching

Constructivism is a further development of cognitivism and its essence is in direct contrast to the philosophical epistemology of objectivism. Specifically, extreme constructivist epistemology does not recognize the existence of objective truth, while moderate constructivist epistemology believes that the objective truth can be put aside first and the cognition of things is formed through the interaction of an individual’s prior experience with existing things. Different from the view of behaviorism and cognitivism, which regards learning as the individual activity of the learner, constructivism regards learning as a process in which an individual builds knowledge on prior understanding through interactions with social environments.

The pioneer of modern constructivism is Jean Piaget, who believed that knowledge neither comes from the subject nor the object but is constructed in the process of interaction between the subject and the object. The enrichment process of the cognitive structure of the organism is the process of the progressive construction of the cognitive structure of the subject from equilibrium to imbalance and back to equilibrium (Piaget 1997 ). Piaget’s view of cognitive learning is mainly to explain how to internalize the objective knowledge structure into a learner’s cognitive structure through their interaction with it (Piaget 1976 ). Therefore, his constructivist view belongs to cognitive constructivism.

As one of the representatives of social constructivism, Vygotsky emphasized the role of socio-cultural history in psychological development, especially the prominent position of activities and social interactions in the development of people’s higher psychological functions. He believed that higher psychological functions come from the internalization of external actions, which is achieved not only through teaching, but also through daily life, games, and labor (Vygotsky 1980 ). In addition, the inner intellectual action is also externalized into the external actual action, so that the subjective can be seen in the objective. The bridge between internalization and externalization is human activity.

Constructivists emphasize the dynamic nature of knowledge, the richness and diversity of learners’ empirical world, active construction, social interaction, and the situational nature of learning. That learners are builders of their own knowledge is an important theoretical basis for blended learning. It is convenient to use various mediated tools in blended learning. Thus teaching can be placed in a certain context, which can stimulate students’ learning interest and allow them to actively construct meaning (Hung 2001 ). Blended learning can not only promote in-depth, face-to-face communication of all parties through offline teaching, but also promote broader and longer in-depth discussions through the establishment of online virtual communities, in which participants can have multilateral collaboration and even cross-cultural communication to achieve corresponding learning outcomes (Lam 2015 ). Blended learning is more likely to provide a way for students to learn independently, pay attention to the construction of an autonomous learning environment, and then enhance the dominant status of students (Gharacheh et al. 2016 ). Due to the seamless connection between online and offline teaching, more activities can be carried out from class to out-of-class.

The guiding role of humanism in teaching and learning

Humanistic psychology was first proposed in the 1960s and prevailed in the 1970s. It is grounded in the belief that people are innately good and will grow and develop if provided with suitable conditions. Humanism advocates respect for human values and self-actualization and proposes that education should meet the actual needs for learners’ development of human nature. The typical representatives of humanism are Maslow and Rogers.

Abraham Harold Maslow (1908–1970) proposed the hierarchy of needs theory, based on which he further proposed the motivational theory of student learning and development.

The hierarchy of needs theory believes that people’s needs are diverse, and these needs can be divided into 7 levels arranged in a ladder according to their nature (Maslow 1970 ).

The hierarchy of needs has the following relationships: first, after the needs of the lower layer are satisfied, the needs of the higher layer will appear and dominate the individual’s behavior. Second, all needs can be divided into two categories: basic needs and growth needs. Basic needs include the first four levels of needs, all of which are directly related to human instincts, and the satisfaction of which is beneficial to one’s physical and mental health. The last three levels of needs are growth needs, which are driven by the development of one’s self-potential, and the satisfaction of which will bring the greatest degree of happiness to the individual.

Human needs determine their motivation, which means that the nature of needs affects the nature of motivation and the intensity of needs affects the intensity of motivation. Among all the needs, self-actualization is the central idea of Maslow’s motivation theory. Self-actualization means that all organisms are born with special potential, which is also an internal need of the organism. The desire to satisfy such a need drives the organism to realize its full potential.

Carl Ransom Rogers (1902–1987) pioneered “client-centered therapy”, believing that each individual has the potential for healthy growth. As long as a friendly, supportive, and sincere atmosphere is created for patients, the patient will recover on their own with no need for treatment.

During psychotherapy, Rogers developed the theory of personality, in which the notion of self or self-concept becomes the central focus. Self-concept believes that people are innately motivated by “self-enhancement”, which is manifested as the individual’s tendency to maximize their potential. This is the most basic motive and purpose of man and is the same as the Maslow motivation theory.

In addition, Rogers unequivocally proposed to cultivate a “whole person”. It is believed that traditional education only emphasizes cognition, but abandons any emotion associated with learning activities and denies the most important part of itself, which leads to the separation of knowledge and emotion in education. He believed that the ideal education is to cultivate a “whole person” who is “integrated in body, mind, feelings, spirit, and intellect” (Rogers, 1982 ). “Educated people only refer to those who have grasped how to learn and how to adapt to changes, and realized that no knowledge, only the process of seeking knowledge, is reliable.” To achieve this teaching objective, the autonomous learning of learners and the sincere attitudes that teachers show to learners are indispensable. Rogers believed that the key to teaching is not lesson plans, teaching skills, teaching resources, or teaching methods, but the relationship between teachers and students. To this end, teachers should fully trust students to develop their potential, respect learners’ feelings and personal experiences, treat learners with their “true” self, and have empathy. With leaners at the center of teaching, both schools and teachers should work for this learner-centered education (Rogers et al. 2012 ).

Rogers believed that learning is “meaningful” and “self-initiated” and he valued ​the relationship between learning materials and learners’ real life (such as learning interests, expectations, and needs). It is proposed that teachers should be facilitators and adopt a “nondirective” approach. Teachers and learners must gain mutual trust and follow eight principles: first, teachers and students jointly formulate curriculum plans and management methods and share responsibilities. Secondly, teachers provide students with various learning materials, including their own learning experience, books, reference materials, etc. Thirdly, learners’ exploration of their own interests should be taken as an important teaching resource and learners should be required to make a learning plan independently or with peers. Fourth, a good atmosphere for learning should be established. Fifth, the focus of learning is not on the content, but on the continuity of the learning process; the goal of teaching is not to have students master “what they need to know”, but to know how to master “what they need to know”. Sixth, learning objectives should be set by learners themselves and the realization of this goal should be promoted through the “self-training” of learners. Seventh, the learning results should be evaluated by students. Eighth, learners should be encouraged to display immersive emotions and reasoning in the learning process from the beginning to the end, so that learning can become an integral part of their lives and behaviors.

Both Maslow and Rogers pointed out that education, instead of being received from outside, should be self-initiated by students. Schools and teachers should create a good educational environment and a friendly, supportive, and sincere atmosphere for students. In this way they can have their basic needs satisfied and in turn spontaneously pursue self-actualization out of growth needs, fully tapping into their potential and achieving their value.

As a powerful supplement to behaviorism and cognitivism, the philosophical thoughts and learning theory of humanism have important guiding significance for teaching, especially in blended learning.

Connectivism and blended learning

Connectivism learning theory was proposed by George Simmons and Stephen Downes in 2005 (Siemens 2005 ; Downes 2005 ). The theory was born at a time when human society, with the challenges brought by rapid changes in and emergence of knowledge, tended to be digitalized, networked, and intelligent. It is an important theory to explain how learning occurs in the network age. This theory believes that knowledge is constantly changing and is a network phenomenon (Downes 2012 ); learning is not only a process in which connections are established and networks are formed, but also one that promotes the formation and connection of internal cognitive neural networks, conceptual networks, and social networks (Siemens 2005 ). In order to maintain the continuous flow and growth of knowledge, it is necessary to continuously establish, maintain and update connections in complex environments. This theory provides a new perspective for interpreting the learning mechanism in the Internet age and developing instructional designs in cyberspace more effectively.

Siemens proposed eight principles in his paper “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age” (Siemens 2005 ), which was further supplemented several years later, constituting of the 13 basic principles of connectivism.

Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.

Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.

Learning may reside in non-human appliances.

Learning is more critical than knowing.

Maintaining and nurturing connections is needed to facilitate continuous learning.

Perceiving connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.

Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of learning activities.

Decision-making is itself a learning process.

The integration of cognition and emotions in meaning-making is important.

Learning has an end goal—namely the increased ability to “do something”.

Organizational and personal learning are integrated tasks.

Learning happens in many different ways. Courses are not the primary conduit for learning.

Learning is a knowledge creation process, not only knowledge consumption.

The connectivism learning theory provides new teaching ideas that adapt to complex network environments and new knowledge concepts, thus it can best reflect the normality of social learning in the current and future network environments (Duke et al. 2013 ). It is conducive to not only promoting innovations in complex and rapidly changing fields, but also training and developing learners’ learning ability and literacy in the digital age, providing them with a broader perspective to grasp the ever-changing growth of knowledge and to adapt to the development of society (Cabrero and Román 2018 ).

Connectivism learning involves both the consumption and production of content. The contribution of learners can expand in the network, such as reflection, critical comments, linked resources, the creation and communication of other digital knowledge, and problem solving (Anderson and Dron 2011 ). The continuous expansion, maintenance, and development of learning networks are the key to maintaining the timeliness and effectiveness of learning among individuals and groups. This point of view also affects the focus of the instructional design in blended learning under the guidance of connectivism, which has shifted to building an ecological environment that is conductive to network development and knowledge growth (Carreño 2014 ).

1.3.4 Curriculum Theory and Blended Learning

Curriculum is related and subject to educational goals and objectives, serving as the concrete embodiment of objectives and as the basis for achieving educational goals. In the meantime, it also constrains teaching and learning modes and strategies. As a theory and method system for curriculum design, the curriculum theory is established on different cognition and value orientations of the disciplines, individual psychological characteristics, and social needs. After the middle of the twentieth century, different curriculum theory genres emerged, such as the knowledge-centered theory, learner-centered theory, and social-centered curriculum theory, all of which are the theoretical basis for the curriculum design of blended learning.

Knowledge-Centered curriculum theory

The development of knowledge-centered curriculum theory involved Herbert Spencer’s substantive curriculum theory and Johann Friedrich Herbart’s intellectualism theory in the nineteenth century, plus the essentialism proposed by Johann Friedrich Herbart and Michael John Demiashkevich, Robert Maynard Hutchins’ perennialism, and Jerome Bruner Seymour Bruner’s subject curriculum theory in the twentieth century.

Intellectualism mainly refers to the genre represented by Johann Friedrich Herbart (Strozier 2002 ). It emphasizes knowledge and its associated intellectual and rational values and advocates knowledge transmission and intelligence development as the basis and purpose of education and teaching and learning processes. It is also emphasized that imparting knowledge is also education, edification, and training, and is the basic approach to provide moral, aesthetic, and religious education.

The main representative of substantive curriculum theory is Herbert Spencer. He defined the purpose and task of education as teaching individuals how to live. Since only science can prepare people for a full life, the knowledge of science is of most value, and thus curricula should be composed of practical scientific knowledge.

The main representatives of essentialist curriculum theory at the early stage include William Chandler Bagley, Michael John Demiashkevich, and F. Alden Shaw. This genre believes that the ultimate purpose of education is to promote social progress and improve the level of democracy. The key factors that determine whether society will advance and develop are personal morality and wisdom, which can be found in excellent cultural heritage from history. Therefore, course content should include common and unchanged cultural elements in cultural heritage, which are the fundamental core of social knowledge.

The main representatives of perennialism curriculum theory include Hutchins of the United States, Alain of France, and L Stone of the United Kingdom (Otiende and Sifuna 1994 ). This genre believes that the nature and purpose of education and curriculum content are eternal; traditional “eternal disciplines” that involve intellectual training are more valuable than practical disciplines. Those “eternal disciplines” with the most valuable knowledge are the most appropriate for schools to include.

Subject curriculum theory, developed in another wave of American education reform led by the noted American psychologist Jerome Seymour Bruner, focuses on satisfying the needs of developing the intellectual resources of modern human beings. The basic ideas of this reform are included in Bruner’s book, The Process of Education , which expounds the four key ideas of this curriculum reform. First, to learn any discipline is mainly to master its basic structure and to master the basic attitude or method of learning the discipline; second, the fundamentals of any discipline can be taught in some form to students of any age; third, teaching in the past only paid attention to the development of learners’ analytical thinking, but in the future, attention should be paid to the development of learners’ intuitive thinking; fourth, the best motivation for learning is to be interested in the learning resources themselves, instead of overemphasizing external stimuli such as rewards and competitions. Among these four key ideas, the core is the basic structure of disciplines.

Knowledge-centered curriculum theory is based on discipline knowledge to explain the curriculum. All knowledge-centered curriculum theories focus on which knowledge is most valuable.

Learner-Centered curriculum theory

The learner-centered curriculum theories originated in the twentieth century, and now mainly include the humanistic curriculum theory represented by Abraham H. Maslow and Carl Ransom Rogers, the empirical curriculum theory represented by John Dewey, and the existential curriculum theory represented by William Morris. With students as the focus, the learner-centered curriculum theories believe that curriculum content should change as students change during the teaching and learning process.

The founders of humanistic curriculum theory are Maslow and Rogers. The theory advocates considering people as a whole, rather than dismembering people’s psychology into several parts that cannot be integrated. It is believed that the fundamental value of education is to help people realize their potential and meet their needs. The purpose of education is to cultivate “a whole person” with good personalities, harmonious development, and freedom. Such a “whole person” can fulfil their potential. In other words, their needs at all levels are met. Also, the harmonious unity of emotional development and cognitive development is achieved. These should be unveiled throughout the entire process of curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation. Humanistic curriculum theory overemphasizes the importance of the “individual” and the values of individualism, which can be considered as its limitations.

Dewey is the representative of the empirical curriculum theory. In the past, curriculum theory witnessed a long-term battle between subject-centered and child-centered instruction. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Dewey resolved this conflict with his unique concept of experience and established the unique empirical curriculum based on naturalistic empiricism (Dewey 1963 ). Dewey ( 2001 ) shared four key ideas about the empirical curriculum theory in his book, Democracy and Education . First, education is continuous reconstruction or reorganization of experience, which adds to the meaning of experience, and which increases ability to direct the course of subsequent experience (p. 81–85). Second, “education as growth” (p. 46). Growth is a natural process, in which people’s habits, minds, and capacities continually grow and improve. Third, “Education as a Necessity of Life”(p. 5). Education itself is the process of life instead of preparation for future life.” Fourth, “Education as a Social Function” (p. 14). If school education is organized according to the form of social life, as a tool and a means to promote social progress and realize the democratic ideal, schools become a form of social organization and social life.

Existential curriculum theory is an educational trend based on existentialism. Existential educational philosophy emphasizes that the main purpose of education is to serve individuals. Education should guide people to become aware of their own environmental conditions, teach individuals to live spontaneously and authentically, and facilitate their smooth engagement in their meaningful existence. The whole emphasis of curriculum for schools must shift from the things to personality. It is advocated that the ideal curriculum should recognize individual differences in experience and take the interests of learners as the basis for learning plans and activities. It advocates activity-based learning starting from learners’ needs. It emphasizes that students have freedom in group and individual activities and recommends the use of a “dialogue” style for individualized learning. Also, it emphasizes reflection and enlightenment in the learning process, against subject-centered learning.

Social-Centered curriculum theory

Social-centered curriculum theory is also known as “social reconstructionist curriculum theory” and its main representatives are George Counts, Harold Rugg, Theodore Brameld, and Paulo Freire. This curriculum theory believes that the fundamental value of education is for social development, emphasizing social problems, and social transformation. It is believed that schools should focus on social transformation rather than personal development. The purpose of education is to “transform society”, according to the subjective blueprint. Schools are the main tools for forming a “new social order”. To this end, school curricula should be organized around the “central issue” of social transformation. The value of the curriculum is social value. The curriculum is the means for realizing the future ideal society. The four key ideas of this theory are as follows: first, the goal of the curriculum is to transform society. Second, the curriculum is centered on a wide range of social issues, which is decided by educators, according to the needs of the society. Third, the curriculum should be organized based on solving practical social problems, rather than subject knowledge. Fourth, in terms of learning strategies, students should be involved in social life as much as possible to enhance their adaptability to social life.

Curriculum theory and blended learning

Knowledge-centered curriculum theory, learner-centered curriculum theory, and society-centered curriculum theory all have different emphases, each of which is important to the current society. Therefore, the design, implementation, and evaluation of the curriculum of blended learning should integrate the above three theories. It is advocated that a curriculum of blended learning should be based on learners’ own needs, interests, development, and self-realization and pay attention to social problems and social needs. Through systematic learning and practice of disciplinary or interdisciplinary knowledge, such a curriculum should be able to meet the needs of social development.

From the perspective of the relationship between the system and the environment, blended learning takes social needs and problems as the input of the environment to the system so that the learning objectives and content can meet the social requirement to students. Blended learning has reshaped the existing form and organization of knowledge, broken down the exclusive nature of disciplinary knowledge in traditional teaching, and thus blurred the boundaries among disciplines. In blended learning, knowledge is identified and selected according to the learning objectives. The learning and application of knowledge are strengthened so that the ability of learners can be improved to meet the needs of social development. Blended learning provides content, resources, and learning paths that suit students’ characteristics to promote students’ self-realization, which represents the concept of learner-centered curriculum. In short, many curricular practices of blended learning are based on project-based learning or problem-based learning. The content of blended learning has focused more on solving specific problems, such as social problems. In the online environment, the learner-centered approach enables learners to set up personalized learning goals, have the autonomy to work on their learning progress, and select the curriculum according to their own needs. In this way, learners can enhance their capabilities of knowledge building and autonomous problem-solving skills.

1.3.5 Instructional Theory and Blended Learning

The design, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum and instruction of blended learning should follow the foundational principles of learning and teaching. In the following section, several major pedagogical theories for guiding blended learning will be introduced.

The theory of Mastery Learning and its implications for blended learning

The theory of mastery learning was founded by Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues. The so-called “mastery of learning” refers to supplementing classroom teaching and learning with frequent and timely “feedback-correction” sessions, in which students can have sufficient study time and receive individual help, so that they can master a unit and continue on a more advanced one, and thereby meet the standards set by the curriculum objectives. The theory of mastery learning contains two implications: first, it is an optimistic theory of teaching and learning; second, it is a set of effective individualized teaching and learning practices that can help most students learn. The core idea is to allow each student to have enough study time. As long as each student is provided enough study time that suits them, they should be able to achieve their learning objectives.

Bloom further pointed out that there are three variables that affect academic achievement: firstly, cognitive entry behaviors include learner’s aptitude and cognitive structure level. They account for 50% of learning. Secondly, affective entry characteristics refer to the integration of non-intellectual factors, such as the learner’s affection, attitude, interest, or confidence. They account for 25% of learning. Thirdly, the quality of instruction refers to whether the presentation, explanation, and arrangement of each element of learning tasks are suitable for learners. It accounts for 25% of learning.

Blended learning can facilitate the realization of mastery learning theory. First, for blended learning, it is more convenient to understand learners’ cognitive level in advance and use online learning resources to enable students to acquire knowledge required at an early stage. Moreover, designing blended learning activities in which students are interested and encouraging students through various ways can facilitate learners’ emotional engagement. Additionally, the online learning space can be fully utilized to provide personalized help and allow an individualized pace, thereby ensuring every learner to achieve their learning objectives.

First Principles of Instruction and their implications for blended learning

Professor M. David Merrill of Utah State University in the United States studied the common basic principles underlying instructional design theories and models. He summarized five principles (Merrill 2002 ). First, problem-centered: Learners learn more when they acquire concepts and principles in the context of real-world tasks. Second, activation: learners learn more when they activate relevant previous knowledge. Third, learners learn more when they observe a demonstration of the skills to be learned. Fourth, application: learners learn more when they apply their newly acquired knowledge and skills. Fifth, integration: learners learn more when they reflect, discuss and integrate their new skills in their everyday life.

Merrill believed that if the First Principles of Instruction can be applied, the effectiveness of teaching strategies will gradually improve. If the principle of “demonstration” is applied, effectiveness will reach the first level; if the principle of “application” is implemented, effectiveness will reach the second level; if the principle of “problem-centered” is implemented, the effectiveness level will reach the third level; if both of the principles of “activation” and “integration” are applied, the level of teaching effectiveness will be improved to a higher level.

The First Principles of Instruction can be used directly to guide the instructional design of blended learning and its implementation.

Scaffolding instruction

“Scaffolding”, originally referring to temporary platforms used to assist construction, is used as a metaphor for the conceptual framework that assists students in problem solving and meaning construction.

The theoretical basis of “scaffolding instruction” originated from the social constructivism founded by the noted psychologist Lev Vygotsky of the former Soviet Union. There are two related basic viewpoints. One, the sociocultural theory, holds that higher mental functions are social by their origin. Higher mental functions, including judgment, reasoning, imagination, intentional recall, will, higher emotion, and language, initially exist as an activity content or form among people. They are internalized by students, as students’ mental ability or inner mental process. Therefore, learning activities serve as important approaches for students to promote the development of their higher mental functions in the context of social interaction with teachers and peers. Second is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) theory, which is “the distance between the current level of development and the level of their potential development” (Vygotsky 1980 ). The former refers to the ability to solve problems independently, while the latter refers the ability to solve problems under the guidance of an adult or in collaboration with more capable peers.

Instruction makes ZPD a reality and creates a new ZPD. The distance between the two levels is dynamic. Everyone’s ZPD is different. In terms of instruction, it is necessary for teachers to fully consider learners’ current level of development, set higher developmental requirements for students according to their proximal development zones, and provide personalized scaffolding.

The instructional design of blended learning can refer to the design of scaffolding instruction theory, namely to build a scaffolding according to the requirement of the zone of proximal development; to create a problem solving scenario to generate a cognitive gap; to guide students to independently explore knowledge construction with the help of the scaffolding built by the teacher; to strengthen knowledge construction through the communication between student–student and teacher-student; and to adopt multi-dimensional evaluation for diagnostic and reflective learning.

Activity Theory and its implications for blended learning

Activity Theory was proposed by Lev Vygotsky and enhanced by former Soviet Union psychologists Alexei Nikolaevich Leontyev and Alexander Romanovich Luria. It is the product of sociocultural activity and sociohistorical research. Activity theory emphasizes the bridging role of activities in the process of internalization of knowledge and skills. Activities are the basis of psychology, particularly for the occurrence and development of human consciousness, while human activities are objective and social.

In instructional design, the subjects are the students and the object is learning objectives, which are affected and changed by the subjects through certain activities. The community refers to other common learners except the students themselves, such as teachers, classmates, other personnel, etc. The tools can be understood as part of the instructional environment, including the design of hardware and software used in the instructional process. The rules are used to coordinate subject and community, as restrictions or agreement in teaching and learning activities. The division of labor means that different members must complete different tasks in the teaching and learning process.

According to activity theory, blended learning should fully utilize technology as a “tool” to help students to achieve their learning goals. At the same time, the rules that need to be followed should be fully designed in the learning activities involving community and individuals; if there are tasks, the division of labor should be well designed to ensure the effectiveness of blended learning.

Community of Inquiry

In 1999, the theoretical framework of the Community of Inquiry for the online learning environment was proposed by Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer of the University of Alberta in Canada (Garrison et al. 1999 ).

There are three core elements of teaching and learning in the Community of Inquiry theory proposed by Garrison et al.: cognitive presence (Garrison et al. 2001 ), social presence (Rourke et al. 1999 ) and teaching presence (Anderson et al. 2001 ). Garrison specified the categories and indicators of the three presences (Garrison and Arbaugh 2007 ).

The focus of the community of inquiry is the creation of educational experiences, which need to adhere to the following eight principles: first, establish purposeful and active inquiry activities. Second, plan for preparing critical thinking through critical reflection and discourse. Third, plan for building trust and creating an atmosphere that supports open communication. Fourth, establish a learning community and form cohesion. Fifth, establish mutual respect and responsibility. Sixth, plan the curriculum content, learning method, and learning time, and effectively monitor and manage critical dialogues and collaborative reflection activities. Seventh, sustain inquiry that moves to a resolution. Eighth, ensure assessment is congruent with intended processes and outcomes.

The following section elaborates on the three community of inquiry presences. Cognitive presence refers to the learners’ ability to construct and confirm meaning on their own through continuous reflection and discourse (Anderson et al. 2001 ). It includes four phases, namely triggering events, exploration, integration, and resolution (Garrison and Arbaugh 2007 ). Specifically, the process consists of a problem or task designed to trigger students for further inquiry; exploration for relevant information or knowledge, analysis, and integration of different perspectives and understandings; and solutions to the problems (Garrison et al. 2000 ).

Teaching presence refers to the design, facilitation, and guidance of cognitive and social process so that learners can achieve personally and educationally meaningful learning outcomes. According to Anderson et al. ( 2001 ), there are three categories in teaching presence, namely, instructional design and organization, discourse facilitation, and direct instruction. The main tasks of teaching presence are to create curriculum content; design learning activities and methods; set learning activity sequences; effectively use communication media; organize, accommodate, and manage purposeful critical dialogues and collaborative reflection activities; and provide students with timely feedback. Teaching presence encourages learners to become investigators with metacognitive awareness and metacognitive strategies in collaborative inquiry.

Social presence refers to the learners’ ability to project themselves socially and emotionally, thereby being perceived as “real people” in mediated communication (Short et al. 1976 ). Social presence consists of three components: affective expression, open communication, and group cohesion.

According to the theoretical model of the Community of Inquiry, the three elements are interrelated and reciprocally influence each other. Partially overlapping the three elements will generate meaningful educational experiences.

The revised CoI framework introduced three external factors apart from communication medium, namely educational context, discipline standards, and applications (Garrison, 2016 ).

Critical thinking is one of the ultimate goals of higher education. The CoI framework can play an important role in the development of students’ critical thinking skills in blended learning. Teachers need to understand and make full use of the three elements of CoI, facilitate in-depth and meaningful learning through collaborative learning activities and reflective dialogues involving critical thinking, and help to achieve student development goals.

1.4 Models of Blended Learning

The previous sections have first discussed the psychological and pedagogical basis for the emergence and development of blended learning, then elaborated on the theoretical foundations (system theory, educational communication theory, learning theory, and curriculum theory) for designing ideal blended learning. In this section, the theory of blended learning will be illustrated, including the blended learning model (namely the plan of blended learning based on theoretical foundations), the instructional design process model of blended learning (namely the process of designing blended learning), and the practice model of blended learning, which explains how to blend in practice. This section will first elaborate on the blended learning model.

A instructional model refers to a relatively stable interaction relationship among various instructional elements designed and gradually developed through practice and guided by educational philosophy that aims to achieve specific learning objectives. Such a model includes the integration of various elements of instructional process, instructional procedures, and corresponding strategies and evaluation methods.

Next, several commonly used instructional models and their applications in blended learning will be introduced. Designers can adopt a model according to their own instructional scenarios (such as learning objectives, learning content, and learners). It should be noted that the following instructional models can be applied in face-to-face, online learning, as well as online and offline learning.

1.4.1 Cognitive Apprenticeship Instruction

Before formal schooling, apprenticeship used to be the most common learning approach. In the ancient apprenticeship system, the apprentice observed the master’s work, communicated with the master, and tried to do the work. After having feedback from the master, the apprentice reflected and gradually developed skills that were as good as the master’s. This method enables learners to put into practice what they have learned because learning occurs in the real world. After the establishment of schools, and as learning has gradually been separated from real-life situations, it is difficult to develop learners’ higher-order cognitive abilities, such as applying knowledge to problem solving. To remedy the defects of traditional education, Collins et al. first proposed Cognitive Apprenticeship Instruction in 1989 (Collins et al. 1988 ). “Apprenticeship” indicates its inheritance or similarity with the traditional apprenticeship system, emphasizing that learning should take place in application scenarios, and knowledge and skills are acquired through the integration of observation of expert work and practice; “cognition” reflects a relatively strong practical significance, emphasizing that learning of generalized knowledge occurs in application scenarios to facilitate the application of knowledge in various scenarios. Cognitive apprenticeship aims to develop learners’ higher-order cognitive skills, such as problem-solving and reflective skills.

Six operational strategies for Cognitive Apprenticeship Instruction are recommended as follows: modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration. Five socialization strategies are also recommended: situational learning, simulation, community of practice, intrinsic motivation, and cooperation.

Cognitive apprenticeship can be implemented in face-to-face learning. However, when the class size is relatively large, learning effectiveness will be compromised. Therefore, blended learning has more advantages in terms of providing scenarios, demonstrating through technical means, providing scaffolding, individual tutoring, and showing students’ practice.

1.4.2 Resources-Based Learning

Resources-based learning refers to an instructional model in which learners learn by interacting with a wide range of learning resources instead of attending classes. The learning resources refer to all available print and non-print media, including books and articles, audio-visual materials, electronic databases, and other computer-based, multimedia, and Internet-based resources. This instructional model aims to develop learners’ ability to learn or explore independently. At the same time, resources-based learning allows learners to choose the methods and pace they prefer to solve the same problem, with the flexibly to make adjustments according to their learning styles, interests, and competences. Therefore, the learning style with this instructional model is individualized or personalized. Resources-based learning usually involves the following steps:

Identify the problem. Key points of courses need to be changed to questions and learning objectives that students can explore.

Identify methods for collecting information. Students need instruction and guidance on information collection and the exploration of potential sources of information.

Collect information. During the process of information collection, students are required to be able to identify and select important information or facts relevant to research questions and to classify the information collected.

Use information. Students need to be instructed on how to use the information they have collected, and how to take note of sources of information.

Synthesize information for solving problems and present. Students are guided to organize information into a systematic, logical synthesis in order to solve the problem. Afterwards, students are required to present in oral, written, or other forms to demonstrate how they synthesized information to solve problems.

Evaluate. Students need to be provided the opportunity for evaluation and understanding on how to evaluate what they have completed. Evaluation and self-reflection are the highlights of resources-based learning (Awaludin 2019 ).

It can be argued that blended learning has advantages in implementing resources-based learning.

1.4.3 Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning (PBL) is a situational learning method based on constructivist theory (Lave and Wenger 1991 ). To be specific, when students actively build understanding by fully grasping concepts and applying them to real-world situations, they are able to acquire a deeper understanding of the learning materials. PBL is usually project-driven and requires students to integrate their understanding across disciplines. PBL projects must integrate fragmented discipline problems to address practical challenges and complex problems.

PBL is mainly composed of four core components, namely content, activity, context, and result. The implementation process is generally divided into six steps, namely learning relevant knowledge, selecting projects that comprehensively apply knowledge to create products (e.g., artifacts, schemes, etc.), forming groups, working in groups to complete projects guided by teachers, sharing project results, and conducting project evaluation. Steps can be added or deleted according to the implementation status of the projects. Blended learning can provide a better learning environment for the implementation of project-based learning.

1.4.4 Problem-Based Learning

Problem-based learning (PBL) emphasizes setting learning in complex and meaningful problem contexts. Students can collaboratively address real-world problems to acquire scientific knowledge, develop problem-solving skills, and become autonomous learners (Hmelo and Ferrari 1997 ). The steps of the PBL process are as follows (Chang et al. 2020 ):

Students are introduced to an ill-structured problem related to their real life.

Students collaboratively analyze the problem and discuss what they need to learn to solve the problem.

Students work on their own to find resources.

Students meet and discuss with group members regarding whether they can have a feasible solution based on the resources they found, which may need several rounds of attempts.

Students report the process of learning and problem solving in front of the whole class.

Students reflect and evaluate the whole process with their teacher and peers.

When it comes to blended learning, problem-based learning has the following benefits for students:

the construction of a more authentic problem context

timely communication and collaboration anytime, anywhere

autonomous learning based on resources

online Q&A areas for questioning and feedback

timely feedback for supporting their inquiry process.

1.4.5 Distributed Learning

Distributed learning, as an instructional model, allows teachers, students, and teaching content to be distributed in a decentralized way, so that teaching and learning can take place at different times and locations. The characteristics are:

distributed learning resources, which enable students to access good instructional resources everywhere

learner-centered, which means students can choose instruction resources suitable for themselves

collaboration and communication through interactive community, which enables students to acquire learning skills and social skills

knowledge construction through learning experience in the virtual environment (Li et al. 2007 ; Zhong and Zhang 2005 )

Distributed learning can overcome the time and space limitations of traditional classrooms and expand the circle of teachers and peers. In other words, students can access instructional resources and resource persons on the Internet so that students can have cognitive views and experiences that are different from those locally to support their knowledge and meaning construction. Students can learn anytime, anywhere based on their needs. A blended learning environment is more conducive to the implementation of a distributed learning model.

1.4.6 Random Access Learning

Random access learning is an instructional model in which complex (or advanced) knowledge and skills are taught. Students can learn the same content several times for different purposes, through different channels, from different aspects, and with different methods, so as to gain a multi-faceted understanding (Spiro et al. 1995 ).

Due to the complexity and multi-faceted nature of problems in some fields, it is difficult to have a comprehensive understanding of the inherent nature of these complex problems and the interrelationships between things from one perspective or at one time. Therefore, random access learning advocates multiple attempts at the learning content for different purposes and from different perspectives. As a result, learners can have a qualitative leap in gaining a comprehensive understanding of the problem. In other words, learners will be able to improve their ability to understand complex interrelationships between things and flexibly apply the knowledge and skills acquired.

Random access learning, based on constructivist theory, helps to develop learners’ creativity and encourages their communication and cooperation. It is applicable in learning contexts including ill-structured and complex problem-solving scenarios, which focus on knowledge application and transfer.

Blended learning makes it more convenient to implement random access learning. Face-to-face learning is suitable for learners to share opinions about one issue from different angles, while online learning enables students to approach the same content from multiple angles by providing learning resources that involve different viewpoints of the same content. At the same time, students can take advantage of the discussion area on the platform to present and share their own opinions with others, which can promote the effective implementation of random access learning.

1.4.7 Flipped Classroom

The educational philosophy behind the flipped classroom is active learning, the core of which is to reverse the activities that take place inside and outside the classroom. That is, “the events that have traditionally taken place inside the classroom now take place outside the classroom and vice versa” (Lage and Treglia 2000 ).

Alten et al. ( 2019 ) summarized five advantages of flipped classrooms by reviewing the existing literature:

It requires students to have strong self-regulation learning ability and in turn helps to develop students’ self-regulation ability.

Students take the initiative to complete assignments in class with the help of teachers, avoiding cognitive overload when completing homework alone.

Students have more time for learning activities, which is an active, constructive, and interactive mode of participation.

Students have more opportunities to receive effective feedback and differentiated instruction from their teachers.

Finally, FTC is often assumed to be a promising pedagogical approach that increases student satisfaction about the learning environment.

Criticisms of flipped classroom include:

Video production is too time- and energy-consuming for teachers and places an excessive demand on learners’ abilities.

It takes up too much time after class and causes too much pressure on students.

The design framework of flipped classrooms should consist of 9 principles (Kim et al. 2014 ), specifically:

provide an opportunity for students to gain first exposure prior to class

provide an incentive for students to prepare for class

provide a mechanism to assess student understanding

provide clear connections between in-class and out-of-class activities

provide clearly defined and well-structured guidance

provide enough time for students to complete assignments

provide facilitation for building a learning community

provide prompt/adaptive feedback on individual or group works

provide technologies that are familiar and easy to access.

Teachers can refer to this framework to design flipped courses. The flipped classroom is a typical model of blended learning, which aims to establish an organic systematic integration between online and face-to-face learning activities.

1.5 Blended Learning Models and Blended Learning Practice Models

To realize the above-mentioned instructional models of blended learning and their learning objectives, the implementation process needs to be designed. From this design process is formed the design process model of blended learning (simply named the blended learning design model). The blended learning design model follows the common characteristics of general instructional design models and has its own uniqueness. This section first discusses the general learning design model to be followed during blended learning, then examines the special characteristics of blended learning design, discusses the blended learning design models that are based on these specific characteristic, and introduces some practice models of blended learning i.e., how to blend in practice.

1.5.1 Blended Learning Design Model

According to the levels of the system, the instructional design can be divided into three levels: “system centered” (such as professional program plans, curriculum, etc.), “product centered” (such as instructional software and resources, etc.) and “classroom centered” (from a unit that takes several hours of classroom teaching). The instructional design at the three levels share common elements of design, but the emphasis at different levels varies.

By summarizing thousands of models of instructional design, Wu ( 1994 ) formed the general model of classic instructional design. This model is designed based on learning theories, instructional theories, communication theories, and systems theories, including all elements of the instructional design process in a relatively systematic and holistic manner.

The general learning design model should be followed for blended learning design. In terms of different levels, blended learning has the design of a blended learning platform and blended courses for system-focused level, as well as a blended instruction process (several hours of classroom teaching) that is at a classroom-focused level. The development of a variety of instructional resources is required in blended learning, at the product-focused level. All elements of the general learning design model are also involved in blended instructional design.

At the same time, the particularity of blended learning also needs to be considered, compared with pure offline or online instruction, which should be the most important difference between the blended instructional design model and the general model of instructional design.

Compared with traditional face-to-face learning, blended learning extends and widens the teaching and learning time and space. Students can learn independently or cooperatively at anytime and anywhere at their own pace. At the same time, instructors are more likely to obtain a variety of relevant information about student learning and provide a personalized learning environment that is more appropriate for them by tracking their online learning traces with the support of big data and learning analytics. Compared with online learning, blended learning would dissolve the sense of alienation between teachers and students and the sense of isolation of students, offer a more flexible organization of teacher-student meetings, allow for group teaching of content suitable for face-to-face instruction, and thus increase the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

Stein/Graham’s design model of blended learning

Jared Stein and Charles R. Graham co-authored a book on blended learning, Essentials for blended learning: a standards-based guide , in 2014. They proposed the blended course design model when conducting research on blended learning in colleges and universities. Blended course design is a cyclic process consisting of three activities: designing, engaging, and evaluating. Stein and Graham emphasized that blended classrooms need iterative development and pointed out that the design of individual learning activities, courses, or units can be supported through continuous improvement of the three activities.

The design part of the model includes four components: designing learning goals and objectives, designing evaluation and feedback, describing learning activities that can achieve teaching goals, and adding online elements to the learning process. The process starts with learning outcomes, then designs corresponding assessment tasks, and finally creates activities for achieving learning outcomes. Teachers are encouraged to design a small part (such as a single course or unit) at a time, and further optimize the design after students have participated in blended learning activities and evaluated online and offline learning effectiveness. In order to support the implementation of instructional design, Stein and Graham ( 2014 ) provided a blended course design template in the book Essentials for blended learning: a standards-based guide.

Eagleton’s design model of blended learning

Eagleton ( 2017 ) proposed a blended learning intervention design model for the teaching of psychology in higher education, including three parts: identifying learning task needs (through pre-tests, learning outcomes, and student profile analysis), designing learning interventions (including developing and disseminating instructional strategies, learning strategies, and evaluation strategy) and evaluation.

Determining learning task requirements is divided into three sub-tasks: obtaining students’ personal profiles, pre-testing students, and specifying learning outcomes, i.e., learning objectives

Finalizing learning task needs based on basic student learning information and learning objectives, followed by learning intervention design (teachers’ teaching strategies, students’ learning strategies, forms of instructional content development and dissemination, and design of instructional evaluation); and

Evaluation (mainly feedback and slight adjustment of instructional programs in the implementation process).

In addition, Eagleton et al. argued that creating a blended learning program is a process that needs to take into account the ability of teachers, the infrastructure of the institution, and the learners’ acceptance of the new learning mode. The blended learning design can be integrated into the whole-brain learning model (Eagleton and Muller 2011 ). It is necessary to consider the differences in students’ information processing of the left brain and the right brain when learning different materials, and integrate the whole-brain learning model to design the learning content and learning form.

1.5.2 Blended Learning Practice Models

In blended learning, one problem to be faced is when to implement online learning and when to implement offline learning. Through blended learning and teaching practices, scholars have summarized some blended learning practice models. These models can help teachers to increase their knowledge and experiences of how to blend online and offline learning.

Zhu Zhiting’s three models of blended learning practice

Zhu and Hu ( 2021 ) summarized three models of blended learning practice, namely O2O, OAO, and OMO, and pointed out that blended learning would inevitably move towards OMO in the future.

O2O (Online to Offline) model refers to a learning environment based on online, offline, or online-to-offline practice. The teaching process mainly takes place offline, while an online learning environment serves as the triage. In a flipped classroom, the ‘students’ online learning determines offline teaching’ model is an embodiment of this type of triage. Another example is maker learning, in which tasks are provided online and explored offline. Learning in this model is mainly a one-way flow from online to offline. There are clear boundaries between online and offline.

OAO (Online and Offline) model refers to the integrated ‘dual store’ form that integrates online and offline practice organically. It is a model based on the integration of online and offline practice, with two-way online and offline intercommunication, interconnection, and mutual appreciation. There are clear boundaries between online and offline.

OMO (Online Merge Offline) model refers to a student-centered learning environment based on the comprehensive integration of online and offline practice, synchronously and asynchronously. Technical methods are used to bridge various structures, levels, and types of data online and offline; establish an ecology of online and offline merging through virtual and real learning scenarios; and realize a new teaching style of personalized teaching and service. This kind of environment is developing in the direction toward the ‘physicalizing of online space and virtualization of offline space’. There are two important changes in the development direction of the learning environment constructed by OMO: 1. the interface boundaries between online and offline is weakening and disappearing; 2. the learner has changed from “marching with heavy burdens” to “walking with ease”.

Michael Horn’s six blended learning models

Micaeal Horn of the Innosight Institute in the United States has identified six blended learning models (Horn and Staker 2011 ).

Face to face driven model is a blended learning model mainly based on face-to-face learning. Teachers deliver course content through traditional classroom teaching, supplemented by online course resources or review materials, so that students can learn independently at home, in the classroom, or the laboratory. Another approach to this model is for teachers to allow students to learn online course content at their own pace in the classroom. The role of the teacher in the process is to provide individualized instruction.

Online driven model is mainly based on online learning. Students primarily study online at a distance, with the option to attend face-to-face instruction. This model provides all learning content through dynamic management of online courses and uses remote synchronous interactive systems (such as video conferencing systems) or asynchronous interactive systems (such as BBS discussion areas) to conduct Q&A discussions with individual students and groups. This model can provide students with learning opportunities at any time and any place and provides more choices for students’ extracurricular activities.

Face-to-face and online rotation model : alternating between face-to-face and online instruction, students alternate between a period of face-to-face instruction and a period of online learning outside of the classroom. A flipped classroom is a form of this model, where students learn online course content in advance, at home and then come to the classroom to receive face-to-face instruction from teachers.

In the flex model , learning content happens online or face-to-face in groups/individual tutorials. Most students learn in an online environment. They can receive face-to-face instruction in the classroom, but the face-to-face instruction is only for group or individual tutoring. Students decide how to arrange the learning content and construct their knowledge at their own pace. While students can access course resources through mobile devices at home and in school or anywhere, teachers play a key role in facilitating learning with individuals and groups of students in a brick-and-mortar school. This model requires obtaining information through the Internet, no matter where the students are located.

Online lab model refers to learning in the computer lab and completing the interactions online. All course materials and teaching activities are completed in the computer lab. Students are supposed to learn independently by watching multimedia learning materials and interacting synchronously or asynchronously with teachers or classmates through video conferencing systems, forums, and e-mails. Although this model sets up a complete online course for students to learn at their own pace, the learning process is in the space of a brick-and-mortar school. Most course units are completed by students on their own, while some units require the collaboration of study groups of three to four students.

The self-blended model allows students to choose between online and offline learning. This is a personalized instructional model. Students can choose learning content online and learn based on their learning needs. Most of the learning is completed online, but students can participate in face-to-face classroom instruction. In the implementation of this model, to support students on the acquisition of relevant knowledge and learning tools, teachers need to prepare corresponding online courses in advance as necessary resources for students to complete learning tasks.

Alten, D. V., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2019). Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28 , 1-18.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3) , 80-97.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R, & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Online Learning, 5(2).

Awaludin, A. (2019). Resource based learning for teaching Arabic. Ijaz Arabi Journal of Arabic Learning, 2(1).

Bersin, J. (2004). How Did We Get Here? The History of Blended Learning. Chapter one of The Blended Learning Book: Best Practices, Proven Methodologies, and Lessons Learned. New Jersey: Wiley.

Cabrero, R. S., & Román, O. C. (2018). Psycho-pedagogical Predecessors of Connectivism as a New Paradigm of Learning. International Journal of Educational Excellence, 4(2), 29-45.

Carreño, I. (2014). Theory of connectivity as an emergent solution to innovative learning strategies. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(2) , 107-116.

Chang, N., Wang, Z., & Hsu, S. H. (2020). A Comparison of the Learning Outcomes for a PBL-based Information Literacy Course in Three Different Innovative Teaching Environments. Libri, 70(3), 213–225.

Chen Q., & Liu R. (2019). Contemporary Educational Psychology (in Chinese) . 3rd Edition. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. Thinking: The journal of philosophy for children, 8(1) , 2–10.

Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America. Technology, Education--Connections (TEC) Series. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, John. (1963). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books, Print.

Dewey, John. (2001). Democracy and Education. Penn State Electronic Classics Series Publication.

Dou X. (1988). Introduction to System Theory (in Chinese). Ningxia Education, (4) , 10-11.

Duan M., Pei X., & Li X.(2009). The Paradigm Shift of Educational System——A Dialogue with Prof. Charles M. Reigeluth, an International Instructional Design Expert (in Chinese). China Educational Technology, (5), 1-6.

Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Connectivism as a Digital Age Learning Theory. The International HETL Review , Special Issue: 4–13.

Downes, S. (2005). Feature: E-learning 2.0. E-learning magazine, (10) , 1.

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge: essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council Canada.

Eagleton S, Muller A. (2011). Development of a model for whole brain learning of physiology. Adv Physiol Educ, 35, 421–426.

Eagleton S. (2017). Designing blended learning interventions for the 21st century student. Adv Physiol Educ, 41(2) , 203-11.

European commission. (2018). Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning.

Erikson, Erik H. Childhood and society, 2nd ed., 1964. W.W. Norton & Co. New York: Cambridge. University Press.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences. Basic books.

Garrison D R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry . New York: Routledge.

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and higher education, 10(3), 157-172.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and higher education, 2(2) , 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3) , 87−105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.

Gao Y.X. (1989). Personality Psychology (in Chinese) . Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.

Gharacheh, A., Esmaeili, Z., Farajollahi, M., & Jamaizadeh, M. (2016). Presentation of blended learning conceptual pattern based on individual and social constructivism theory. Int., J. of Humanities and Cultural Stud. , 1.

Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2017). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. John Wiley & Sons.

Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Innosight institute, 5(1) , 1-17.

Hmelo, C. E. & Ferrari (1997). The problem-based learning tutorial: Cultivating higher order thinking skills. Journal of the education of the gifted, 20 (4), 401- 422.

Hung, D. (2001). Design principles for web-based learning: Implications from Vygotskian thought. Educational Technology, 41 (3), 33-41.

Kagan, J., Rosman, B., Day, D., & Albert, J. (1964). Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs,78(1), 1-37.

Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37-50.

Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30.

Lam, J. (2015). Collaborative learning using social media tools in a blended learning course. In International conference on hybrid learning and continuing education (pp. 187–198). Springer, Cham.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Li L.(2010). Instructional Design (in Chinese) . Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Li Y., Jiang W. & Yao Q.(2007). A Brief Discussion on Distributed Learning (in Chines(e). Modern Educational Technology, (1), 52–54, 14.

Lin C. (1997). On the Construction of Subject Competence (in Chinese). Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Science Edition), (1) , 5-12.

Liu M., Kang C., Dong L. (2018). Instructional design research: A disciplinary perspective (in Chinese). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.

Nan G., Li Y. (2005). Educational Communication (Second Edition) (in Chinese) . Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.) . New York: Harper & Row.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational technology research and development, 50, 43-59.

Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human learning. Pearson Education.

Otiende, J. E., & Sifuna, D. N. (1994). An introductory history of education. Nairobi: University of Nairobi Press.

Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s Theory. In B. Inhelder, H. H. Chipman, & C. Zwingmann (Eds.), Piaget and His School: A Reader in Developmental Psychology (11-23). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Piaget, J. (1997). The principles of genetic epistemology (Vol. 7) . Psychology Press.

Research Group on Core Literacy. (2016). Core Competencies and Values for Chinese Students (in Chinese). Journal of The Chinese Society of Education, (10), 1-3.

Rogers, C. R. (1982). Freedom to learn (2nd ed.) . Ohio: Merrill.

Rogers, C. R., Lyon, H. C., & Tausch, R. (2012). On becoming an effective teacher: Person-centered teaching, psychology, philosophy, and dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon . London: Routledge.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R. & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing. The Journal of Distance Education / Revue de l’ducation Distance, 14(2) , 50-71.

Shaffer, D. R. & Kipp, K. (2012). Developmental psychology: Childhood and adolescence (9th ed). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications : London; New York: Wiley.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1) , 3-10.

Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Centra software , 1 , 1-11.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1995). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Constructivism, Hillsdale , NJ: Erlbaum, 9 .

Steffe, & J. E. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education; Constructivism in education (pp. 85–107, Chapter xvii, 575 Pages). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ.

Stein, J., & Graham, C.R. (2014). Essentials for blended learning : a standards-based guide. New York: Routledge.

Strozier, R. M. (2002). Foucault, subjectivity, and identity: Historical constructions of subject and self. Wayne State University Press.

Toffler A. (1990). Powershift: Knowledge, wealth, and violence at the edge of the 21st century. Bantam Books.

Voogt, J, Roblin N. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 4(3), 299-321.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang J., Yuan S. & Zhao G.(2018). The impact of blended teaching on college students’ learning effectiveness: An empirical study based on the application effect of MOOC in first-class universities in China (in Chinese). Modern Distance Education, (5), 39-47.

Wang S. (2017). Rain Classroom: Smart Teaching Tools in the Background of Mobile Internet and Big Data (in Chinese). Modern Educational Technology, (5), 26-32.

Watson, J. B., & Kimble, G. A. (2017). Behaviorism. Routledge.

Wei Q., & Zhong Z.(1992). Educational Communication (in Chinese) . Nan Chang: Jiangxi Education Press.

Wei Y., Qin D., Hu J., Yao H. & Shi Y.(2019). Classroom action recognition of students based on deep learning (in Chinese). Modern Educational Technology, (7), 87-91.

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of educational research, 47(1) , 1-64.

Wu M.(1994). Instructional Design. Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Yin H., & Bi H.(2000). Learning Ability (in Chinese) . Qingdao: Qingdao Ocean University Press.

Zhang Xiaofeng. (2002). Curriculum Development under the consideration of multiple intelligences theory (in Chinese) . Journal of Educational Development, (1), 20-23.

Zhang Y., Yi D., Liu L., Wu Y., Liu X., Zhao Z. & Cao Y.(2019). Construction and practice of blended teaching mode based on SPOC (in Chinese). Chongqing Medicine, (21), 3766-3769.

Zeng W., & Cao R. (2005). Analysis of Learning Subjects (in Chinese) . Beijing: Chinese Cultural and Historical Press.

Zhong Z., & Zhang Q.(2005). On Distributed Learning (in Chinese). Studies In Foreign Education, (7), 28-33.

Zhu Z. & Hu J. (2021). Technology empowers educational innovation in the later stage of the epidemic: a new form of online and offline integrated teaching (in Chinese). Open Education Research, (1), 13-23.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Educational Technology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Meifeng Liu & Guoqing Zhao

Institute of Teacher Education for Advanced Study, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China

Zhixian Zhong

School of Education, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China

National Institute of Education Sciences of China, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meifeng Liu .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

The International Centre for Higher Education Innovation under the auspices of UNESCO, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Institute of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Jiangang Cheng

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this license to share adapted material derived from this chapter or parts of it.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Liu, M., Zhao, G., Zhong, Z., Ma, J., Wang, W. (2024). Theoretical Foundations for Blended Learning. In: Li, M., Han, X., Cheng, J. (eds) Handbook of Educational Reform Through Blended Learning. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6269-3_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6269-3_1

Published : 01 November 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-99-6268-6

Online ISBN : 978-981-99-6269-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Blended Learning in the Age of COVID-19

• Share article

(This is the first post in a two-part series.)

This new series continues a 25-post “blitz” that began on Aug. 1 supporting teachers as we enter a pandemic-fueled school year.

You can see all the posts from this month, as well as the 60 from the spring, at All Classroom Q&A Posts on the Coronavirus Crisis .

Many schools will begin this year in a hybrid situation, with students attending a physical school part time and spending the remaining hours in remote asynchronous instruction. Other districts, like ours, will begin the year entirely online, with students spending part of their time in live classes while working on their own during other parts of the day.

This series may be able to provide some support for teachers trying to figure out how to make this new learning environment work...

Today, Alfonso Gonzalez, Janice Wyatt-Ross, and Kait Gentry share their advice.

The Core 4 of distance learning

Alfonso Gonzalez has been teaching grades 4-8 for 29 years. He is a national-board-certified teacher in the area of early-adolescent generalist with a master’s of arts in teaching and has completed two ISTE Capstone certifications. He tweets regularly at @educatoral and blogs often at Mr. Gonzalez’s Classroom :

With schools all over the world redesigning because of COVID-19, blended learning is becoming a new normal. Blended learning has been around for a while and is the combination of traditional face-to-face instruction with aspects of online instruction all while students are in the classroom with the teacher. Blended learning strives to provide students the best of both face-to-face and online learning experiences. Blended classrooms include face-to-face instruction techniques such as direct instruction or lecture, group discussions, and small-group work while also using technology to provide in-class online learning that students can do at home provided they have access to necessary technology.

Online instruction is often facilitated by a Learning Management System or LMS. An LMS is where the instructor puts all the lessons and activities that students must work through to successfully complete the course. Typical LMS’s that schools use include Canvas , Schoology , Blackboard , and even Google Classroom . If you’re looking for an LMS that can support gamification , check out Classcraft . Just as whole-class discussion and small-group work are staples of face-to-face instruction, discussion forums and asynchronous learning are staples of online learning. Blended classrooms can empower students who are introverted or shy to share their ideas and learn from others using discussion forums where conversations that were started in class can continue well after the class ends.

Teachers who never taught an online course, never used an LMS, and maybe even hardly used technology in their classroom with their students had to learn how to use an LMS and put their often analog or nondigital work, assignments, activities, labs, etc., on an LMS, and they had to do that very quickly. Now that many of us have some time before school starts up again, we can better prepare.

During the spring, as we were offering 100 percent online education to our students, many teachers from my district and all over Washington state took an online course to learn how to teach online. The course, offered by Reimagine WA ED, a Jeff Utecht Consulting Co ., called Shifting School: Implementing Distance Learning, gave us strategies to support our students during their forced at-home-online-learning.

One of the big takeaways for me from the course that applies to online learning and therefore blended learning is what they call the Core 4 of distance learning. School districts, or at least schools, should agree on what systems they are going to use to provide online learning. First, schools need to determine which LMS they will use so that all students, regardless of grade level or teacher, are using the same system. Many schools that already used Google Education tools chose Google Classroom . Second, schools need to determine what teachers and students will use for file storage and sharing. Google Education schools used Google Drive, for example. Third, schools need to determine how teachers will connect with students synchronously for online meetings. Many schools used Zoom or Google Meet . Fourth, schools need to determine what teachers will use for recording video lessons for asynchronous learning. Chrome users use Screencastify for screencasting (recording what you are doing on your computer screen), but services such as Loom and Screencast-O-Matic were also quite popular.

With your Core 4, you can provide your students online learning experiences when they are with you in class, and if or when schools have to shut down again and go 100 percent online, your students will be ready because they will have learned how to use the tech tools needed to learn at home! Now that schools and teachers are being forced to incorporate educational technology and seriously implement blended learning because we will have students working from home, all students will have access to this learning model. Even before COVID, kids were very likely to learn, get higher education degrees, or do on-the-job training through blended learning or online learning, so the sooner kids are exposed to those modes of learning the better prepared they will be for their future learning. It is my hope that two of the many good things to come from this pandemic are more equitable access to technology and connectivity as well as more teachers incorporating technology in their courses.

Flexibility is key

Janice Wyatt-Ross has a bachelor’s in special education from the University of Central Arkansas, a master’s in special education from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and a doctorate in urban educational leadership from the University of Cincinnati. Her career began as an elementary special education teacher, and she has held such positions as a consulting teacher, compliance specialist, field-service assistant professor with the University of Cincinnati, gap-reduction specialist, associate principal at Bryan Station High School in Kentucky, administrative dean at Cardinal Valley Elementary in Kentucky, assistant professor at Asbury University, and director of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. She is now the program director for the Success Academy of the Fayette County public schools in Kentucky :

In recent years, it has been harder and harder to educate students in the age of social media. Gone are the days when students would be docile and compliant while sitting and listening to a teacher lecture for an hour. How do teachers in the classrooms compete with upbeat music, realistic photos, flashy videos, and friends there to like and share content with all from the palm of students’ hands? How do you harness these features and bring all of this to the classroom? Now add the barrier of high school students who are delayed in their progression toward graduation and a diploma because many of them got caught up in the frenzy of being social. As the director of a dropout-prevention and re-engagement center, I am addressing this dilemma every day. One way we address re-engaging students in school is through blended learning.

Blended learning for our program is a combination of digital learning, which can be accessed anywhere the student has internet access, 24 hours a day, seven days a week; face-to-face instruction with a certified instructor; and project-based community-service learning activities. Combining all of this with a staff who is persistent in making sure students visualize the goal of completing high school and beyond, there is no justification for students being left behind. Students are attracted to this model because they can work at their own pace while having teachers on hand to give guidance in the areas that they need help, and they can give back to the community. Students receive grades based on a combination of their completion of coursework through the digital learning system and lessons teachers create based on standards addressed in the community-based projects. We have developed a curriculum framework around five elements that are the foundation of our blended learning model. The most energizing aspect of this framework is that teachers have the autonomy to take risks and be as innovative as they can think to be.

We plan to continue this model even in the era of COVID-19 with virtual instruction. As we plan for what school will look like this year, we will incorporate live virtual instructional sessions with recorded on-demand lesson presentations. Students will still have access to their digital learning program, but this will be supplemented with live sessions and prerecorded teacher mini-lessons that students can also watch if they are unable to attend the live sessions and need additional help. Each teacher will have virtual office hours to answer student questions and to provide feedback on assignments. Community members will be invited to speak with students during virtual sessions to aid students in their project-based learning activities.

This framework is not for everyone. Teachers and administrators have to be willing to be flexible and be vulnerable enough to admit mistakes and not take it personally when an idea is not successful. Re-engaging students back into school does not lend itself to following a prescribed pacing guide or teacher’s manual. This framework requires lots and lots of planning, reflection, and sometimes revising on the spot. Did I mention that this framework requires flexibility? Every new group of students will have a new set of needs and interests. To be student-centered, culturally responsive, and tailored to student interests, this framework has to be flexible. Our framework is individualized, intervening, intensive, intentional, and immediate.

The flipped-classroom model

Kait Gentry is the middle school learning and support coordinator at Calvert School in Baltimore, where she has taught for 12 years in both middle and lower school. Kait has overseen the development and expansion of Calvert’s Lyceum learning center, which serves the entire middle school student body through both structured and optional enrichment and support periods:

Like many educators, I leapt into the world of virtual learning last spring due to COVID-19 school closures. While some teachers have spent years immersed in the world of technology, many of us were adjusting to sitting behind a screen and figuring out how to best translate the benefits of in-person learning to the virtual world and how to use technology-supported instruction to enhance student learning.

Blended learning, in the traditional sense, combines in-person teacher-student interactions with online learning tools to support overall instruction for both the teacher and student. And with the widespread use of technology in teaching and learning, there are numerous ways to approach blended learning today.

However, as we shifted to distance learning last spring, we had to take the best of blended learning and adjust it to exist in a completely virtual world. Prior to COVID-19, we had explored the flipped- classroom model, which is a popular form of blended learning that typically layers instructional videos to be consumed independently at home, with time spent in the classroom focused on working through assignments, extension activities, or application problems. As we transitioned to remote learning, we worked to capture the benefits of “traditional” in-person learning through live, virtual small-group classes, which allowed students to ask clarifying questions in real time and to provide peer-to-peer learning opportunities, as well as critical social interactions. While there were so many educational losses this spring, this virtual flipped classroom provided opportunities for students to engage in discussions and instruction in smaller groups than would normally occur in a classroom setting. I found that this was ideal for our quieter students (who loved using the chat feature to share ideas) and also allowed teachers to connect with students in even deeper, more authentic ways despite the distance.

The flipped-classroom model, whether virtual or in person, has been a gift for many of my students, most notably those with learning differences or more introverted kids. This model provided the opportunity for students to review new learning materials prior to class beginning, which increased their confidence in the materials and academic engagement during live discussions, as well as encouraged all students to process new material independently. One of the biggest challenges that some students face is relying on peers and teachers to do the work of content “digestion” for them—making connections to prior knowledge or predicting future connections or patterns. The flipped model places a greater emphasis on the student putting in more of their own intellectual effort, leading to greater retention of the material and a significant increase in confidence.

Blended learning also incorporates online learning tools, whether it is in class or at home, that can offer more personalized learning experiences for students. For example, vocabulary development can vary drastically among individual students. Using an online tool like InferCabulary allows my students to work through developing new vocabulary words at their own pace and level. Over time, the program learns what words a student has mastered and which words still need additional work, providing a more customized learning experience than traditional pen and paper vocabulary assignments. This leads to greater retention as well as broader extension and usage of the words in a variety of contexts. Furthermore, the program incorporates gamification to keep students engaged and motivated.

As teachers work through the unknowns of the 2020-21 school year, educators will have to continue to examine and evaluate how to maximize teacher-student interactions as well as online learning tools to support instruction and student development. While this year is sure to bring more challenges, it is equally likely that there will be incredible growth and development along the way.

Thanks to Alfonso, Janice, and Kait for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email or RSS Reader. And if you missed any of the highlights from the first eight years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below. The list doesn’t include ones from this current year, but you can find those by clicking on the “answers” category found in the sidebar.

All Classroom Q&A Posts on the Coronavirus Crisis

This Year’s Most Popular Q&A Posts

Race & Gender Challenges

Classroom-Management Advice

Best Ways to Begin the School Year

Best Ways to End the School Year

Implementing the Common Core

Student Motivation & Social-Emotional Learning

Teaching Social Studies

Cooperative & Collaborative Learning

Using Tech in the Classroom

Parent Engagement in Schools

Teaching English-Language Learners

Reading Instruction

Writing Instruction

Education Policy Issues

Differentiating Instruction

Math Instruction

Science Instruction

Advice for New Teachers

Author Interviews

Entering the Teaching Profession

The Inclusive Classroom

Learning & the Brain

Administrator Leadership

Teacher Leadership

Relationships in Schools

Professional Development

Instructional Strategies

Best of Classroom Q&A

Professional Collaboration

Classroom Organization

Mistakes in Education

Project-Based Learning

I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 06 February 2017

Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes

• Mugenyi Justice Kintu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4500-1168 1 , 2 ,
• Chang Zhu 2 &
• Edmond Kagambe 1  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  14 , Article number:  7 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

779k Accesses

246 Citations

36 Altmetric

Metrics details

This paper investigates the effectiveness of a blended learning environment through analyzing the relationship between student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It is aimed at determining the significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness taking student characteristics/background and design features as independent variables and learning outcomes as dependent variables. A survey was administered to 238 respondents to gather data on student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. The final semester evaluation results were used as a measure for performance as an outcome. We applied the online self regulatory learning questionnaire for data on learner self regulation, the intrinsic motivation inventory for data on intrinsic motivation and other self-developed instruments for measuring the other constructs. Multiple regression analysis results showed that blended learning design features (technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support) and student characteristics (attitudes and self-regulation) predicted student satisfaction as an outcome. The results indicate that some of the student characteristics/backgrounds and design features are significant predictors for student learning outcomes in blended learning.

Introduction

The teaching and learning environment is embracing a number of innovations and some of these involve the use of technology through blended learning. This innovative pedagogical approach has been embraced rapidly though it goes through a process. The introduction of blended learning (combination of face-to-face and online teaching and learning) initiatives is part of these innovations but its uptake, especially in the developing world faces challenges for it to be an effective innovation in teaching and learning. Blended learning effectiveness has quite a number of underlying factors that pose challenges. One big challenge is about how users can successfully use the technology and ensuring participants’ commitment given the individual learner characteristics and encounters with technology (Hofmann, 2014 ). Hofmann adds that users getting into difficulties with technology may result into abandoning the learning and eventual failure of technological applications. In a report by Oxford Group ( 2013 ), some learners (16%) had negative attitudes to blended learning while 26% were concerned that learners would not complete study in blended learning. Learners are important partners in any learning process and therefore, their backgrounds and characteristics affect their ability to effectively carry on with learning and being in blended learning, the design tools to be used may impinge on the effectiveness in their learning.

This study tackles blended learning effectiveness which has been investigated in previous studies considering grades, course completion, retention and graduation rates but no studies regarding effectiveness in view of learner characteristics/background, design features and outcomes have been done in the Ugandan university context. No studies have also been done on how the characteristics of learners and design features are predictors of outcomes in the context of a planning evaluation research (Guskey, 2000 ) to establish the effectiveness of blended learning. Guskey ( 2000 ) noted that planning evaluation fits in well since it occurs before the implementation of any innovation as well as allowing planners to determine the needs, considering participant characteristics, analyzing contextual matters and gathering baseline information. This study is done in the context of a plan to undertake innovative pedagogy involving use of a learning management system (moodle) for the first time in teaching and learning in a Ugandan university. The learner characteristics/backgrounds being investigated for blended learning effectiveness include self-regulation, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, attitude to blended learning, gender and age. We investigate the blended learning design features of learner interactions, face-to-face support, learning management system tools and technology quality while the outcomes considered include satisfaction, performance, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction. Establishing the significant predictors of outcomes in blended learning will help to inform planners of such learning environments in order to put in place necessary groundwork preparations for designing blended learning as an innovative pedagogical approach.

Kenney and Newcombe ( 2011 ) did their comparison to establish effectiveness in view of grades and found that blended learning had higher average score than the non-blended learning environment. Garrison and Kanuka ( 2004 ) examined the transformative potential of blended learning and reported an increase in course completion rates, improved retention and increased student satisfaction. Comparisons between blended learning environments have been done to establish the disparity between academic achievement, grade dispersions and gender performance differences and no significant differences were found between the groups (Demirkol & Kazu, 2014 ).

However, blended learning effectiveness may be dependent on many other factors and among them student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes. Research shows that the failure of learners to continue their online education in some cases has been due to family support or increased workload leading to learner dropout (Park & Choi, 2009 ) as well as little time for study. Additionally, it is dependent on learner interactions with instructors since failure to continue with online learning is attributed to this. In Greer, Hudson & Paugh’s study as cited in Park and Choi ( 2009 ), family and peer support for learners is important for success in online and face-to-face learning. Support is needed for learners from all areas in web-based courses and this may be from family, friends, co-workers as well as peers in class. Greer, Hudson and Paugh further noted that peer encouragement assisted new learners in computer use and applications. The authors also show that learners need time budgeting, appropriate technology tools and support from friends and family in web-based courses. Peer support is required by learners who have no or little knowledge of technology, especially computers, to help them overcome fears. Park and Choi, ( 2009 ) showed that organizational support significantly predicts learners’ stay and success in online courses because employers at times are willing to reduce learners’ workload during study as well as supervisors showing that they are interested in job-related learning for employees to advance and improve their skills.

The study by Kintu and Zhu ( 2016 ) investigated the possibility of blended learning in a Ugandan University and examined whether student characteristics (such as self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning, computer competence) and student background (such as family support, social support and management of workload) were significant factors in learner outcomes (such as motivation, satisfaction, knowledge construction and performance). The characteristics and background factors were studied along with blended learning design features such as technology quality, learner interactions, and Moodle with its tools and resources. The findings from that study indicated that learner attitudes towards blended learning were significant factors to learner satisfaction and motivation while workload management was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction. Among the blended learning design features, only learner interaction was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction.

The focus of the present study is on examining the effectiveness of blended learning taking into consideration learner characteristics/background, blended learning design elements and learning outcomes and how the former are significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

Studies like that of Morris and Lim ( 2009 ) have investigated learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes in blended learning. They however do not deal with such variables in the contexts of blended learning design as an aspect of innovative pedagogy involving the use of technology in education. Apart from the learner variables such as gender, age, experience, study time as tackled before, this study considers social and background aspects of the learners such as family and social support, self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning and management of workload to find out their relationship to blended learning effectiveness. Identifying the various types of learner variables with regard to their relationship to blended learning effectiveness is important in this study as we embark on innovative pedagogy with technology in teaching and learning.

Literature review

This review presents research about blended learning effectiveness from the perspective of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It also gives the factors that are considered to be significant for blended learning effectiveness. The selected elements are as a result of the researcher’s experiences at a Ugandan university where student learning faces challenges with regard to learner characteristics and blended learning features in adopting the use of technology in teaching and learning. We have made use of Loukis, Georgiou, and Pazalo ( 2007 ) value flow model for evaluating an e-learning and blended learning service specifically considering the effectiveness evaluation layer. This evaluates the extent of an e-learning system usage and the educational effectiveness. In addition, studies by Leidner, Jarvenpaa, Dillon and Gunawardena as cited in Selim ( 2007 ) have noted three main factors that affect e-learning and blended learning effectiveness as instructor characteristics, technology and student characteristics. Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino ( 2001 ) showed the need for examining learner characteristics for effective instructional technology use and showed that user characteristics do impact on behavioral intention to use technology. Research has dealt with learner characteristics that contribute to learner performance outcomes. They have dealt with emotional intelligence, resilience, personality type and success in an online learning context (Berenson, Boyles, & Weaver, 2008 ). Dealing with the characteristics identified in this study will give another dimension, especially for blended learning in learning environment designs and add to specific debate on learning using technology. Lin and Vassar, ( 2009 ) indicated that learner success is dependent on ability to cope with technical difficulty as well as technical skills in computer operations and internet navigation. This justifies our approach in dealing with the design features of blended learning in this study.

Learner characteristics/background and blended learning effectiveness

Studies indicate that student characteristics such as gender play significant roles in academic achievement (Oxford Group, 2013 ), but no study examines performance of male and female as an important factor in blended learning effectiveness. It has again been noted that the success of e- and blended learning is highly dependent on experience in internet and computer applications (Picciano & Seaman, 2007 ). Rigorous discovery of such competences can finally lead to a confirmation of high possibilities of establishing blended learning. Research agrees that the success of e-learning and blended learning can largely depend on students as well as teachers gaining confidence and capability to participate in blended learning (Hadad, 2007 ). Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ) note in their research that 75% of students and 72% of teachers were lacking in skills to utilize ICT based learning components due to insufficient skills and experience in computer and internet applications and this may lead to failure in e-learning and blended learning. It is therefore pertinent that since the use of blended learning applies high usage of computers, computer competence is necessary (Abubakar & Adetimirin, 2015 ) to avoid failure in applying technology in education for learning effectiveness. Rovai, ( 2003 ) noted that learners’ computer literacy and time management are crucial in distance learning contexts and concluded that such factors are meaningful in online classes. This is supported by Selim ( 2007 ) that learners need to posses time management skills and computer skills necessary for effectiveness in e- learning and blended learning. Self-regulatory skills of time management lead to better performance and learners’ ability to structure the physical learning environment leads to efficiency in e-learning and blended learning environments. Learners need to seek helpful assistance from peers and teachers through chats, email and face-to-face meetings for effectiveness (Lynch & Dembo, 2004 ). Factors such as learners’ hours of employment and family responsibilities are known to impede learners’ process of learning, blended learning inclusive (Cohen, Stage, Hammack, & Marcus, 2012 ). It was also noted that a common factor in failure and learner drop-out is the time conflict which is compounded by issues of family , employment status as well as management support (Packham, Jones, Miller, & Thomas, 2004 ). A study by Thompson ( 2004 ) shows that work, family, insufficient time and study load made learners withdraw from online courses.

Learner attitudes to blended learning can result in its effectiveness and these shape behavioral intentions which usually lead to persistence in a learning environment, blended inclusive. Selim, ( 2007 ) noted that the learners’ attitude towards e-learning and blended learning are success factors for these learning environments. Learner performance by age and gender in e-learning and blended learning has been found to indicate no significant differences between male and female learners and different age groups (i.e. young, middle-aged and old above 45 years) (Coldwell, Craig, Paterson, & Mustard, 2008 ). This implies that the potential for blended learning to be effective exists and is unhampered by gender or age differences.

Blended learning design features

The design features under study here include interactions, technology with its quality, face-to-face support and learning management system tools and resources.

Research shows that absence of learner interaction causes failure and eventual drop-out in online courses (Willging & Johnson, 2009 ) and the lack of learner connectedness was noted as an internal factor leading to learner drop-out in online courses (Zielinski, 2000 ). It was also noted that learners may not continue in e- and blended learning if they are unable to make friends thereby being disconnected and developing feelings of isolation during their blended learning experiences (Willging & Johnson, 2009). Learners’ Interactions with teachers and peers can make blended learning effective as its absence makes learners withdraw (Astleitner, 2000 ). Loukis, Georgious and Pazalo (2007) noted that learners’ measuring of a system’s quality, reliability and ease of use leads to learning efficiency and can be so in blended learning. Learner success in blended learning may substantially be affected by system functionality (Pituch & Lee, 2006 ) and may lead to failure of such learning initiatives (Shrain, 2012 ). It is therefore important to examine technology quality for ensuring learning effectiveness in blended learning. Tselios, Daskalakis, and Papadopoulou ( 2011 ) investigated learner perceptions after a learning management system use and found out that the actual system use determines the usefulness among users. It is again noted that a system with poor response time cannot be taken to be useful for e-learning and blended learning especially in cases of limited bandwidth (Anderson, 2004 ). In this study, we investigate the use of Moodle and its tools as a function of potential effectiveness of blended learning.

The quality of learning management system content for learners can be a predictor of good performance in e-and blended learning environments and can lead to learner satisfaction. On the whole, poor quality technology yields no satisfaction by users and therefore the quality of technology significantly affects satisfaction (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001 ). Continued navigation through a learning management system increases use and is an indicator of success in blended learning (Delone & McLean, 2003 ). The efficient use of learning management system and its tools improves learning outcomes in e-learning and blended learning environments.

It is noted that learner satisfaction with a learning management system can be an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness. Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) noted that learners showed an appreciation to Moodle’s contribution in their learning. They showed positivity with it as it improved their understanding of course material (Ahmad & Al-Khanjari, 2011 ). The study by Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) used descriptive statistics to indicate improved learning by use of uploaded syllabus and session plans on Moodle. Improved learning is also noted through sharing study material, submitting assignments and using the calendar. Learners in the study found Moodle to be an effective educational tool.

In blended learning set ups, face-to-face experiences form part of the blend and learner positive attitudes to such sessions could mean blended learning effectiveness. A study by Marriot, Marriot, and Selwyn ( 2004 ) showed learners expressing their preference for face-to-face due to its facilitation of social interaction and communication skills acquired from classroom environment. Their preference for the online session was only in as far as it complemented the traditional face-to-face learning. Learners in a study by Osgerby ( 2013 ) had positive perceptions of blended learning but preferred face-to-face with its step-by-stem instruction. Beard, Harper and Riley ( 2004 ) shows that some learners are successful while in a personal interaction with teachers and peers thus prefer face-to-face in the blend. Beard however dealt with a comparison between online and on-campus learning while our study combines both, singling out the face-to-face part of the blend. The advantage found by Beard is all the same relevant here because learners in blended learning express attitude to both online and face-to-face for an effective blend. Researchers indicate that teacher presence in face-to-face sessions lessens psychological distance between them and the learners and leads to greater learning. This is because there are verbal aspects like giving praise, soliciting for viewpoints, humor, etc and non-verbal expressions like eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, etc which make teachers to be closer to learners psychologically (Kelley & Gorham, 2009 ).

Learner outcomes

The outcomes under scrutiny in this study include performance, motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction. Motivation is seen here as an outcome because, much as cognitive factors such as course grades are used in measuring learning outcomes, affective factors like intrinsic motivation may also be used to indicate outcomes of learning (Kuo, Walker, Belland, & Schroder, 2013 ). Research shows that high motivation among online learners leads to persistence in their courses (Menager-Beeley, 2004 ). Sankaran and Bui ( 2001 ) indicated that less motivated learners performed poorly in knowledge tests while those with high learning motivation demonstrate high performance in academics (Green, Nelson, Martin, & Marsh, 2006 ). Lim and Kim, ( 2003 ) indicated that learner interest as a motivation factor promotes learner involvement in learning and this could lead to learning effectiveness in blended learning.

Learner satisfaction was noted as a strong factor for effectiveness of blended and online courses (Wilging & Johnson, 2009) and dissatisfaction may result from learners’ incompetence in the use of the learning management system as an effective learning tool since, as Islam ( 2014 ) puts it, users may be dissatisfied with an information system due to ease of use. A lack of prompt feedback for learners from course instructors was found to cause dissatisfaction in an online graduate course. In addition, dissatisfaction resulted from technical difficulties as well as ambiguous course instruction Hara and Kling ( 2001 ). These factors, once addressed, can lead to learner satisfaction in e-learning and blended learning and eventual effectiveness. A study by Blocker and Tucker ( 2001 ) also showed that learners had difficulties with technology and inadequate group participation by peers leading to dissatisfaction within these design features. Student-teacher interactions are known to bring satisfaction within online courses. Study results by Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that student-teacher interaction strongly related with student satisfaction and high learner-learner interaction resulted in higher levels of course satisfaction. Descriptive results by Naaj, Nachouki, and Ankit ( 2012 ) showed that learners were satisfied with technology which was a video-conferencing component of blended learning with a mean of 3.7. The same study indicated student satisfaction with instructors at a mean of 3.8. Askar and Altun, ( 2008 ) found that learners were satisfied with face-to-face sessions of the blend with t-tests and ANOVA results indicating female scores as higher than for males in the satisfaction with face-to-face environment of the blended learning.

Studies comparing blended learning with traditional face-to-face have indicated that learners perform equally well in blended learning and their performance is unaffected by the delivery method (Kwak, Menezes, & Sherwood, 2013 ). In another study, learning experience and performance are known to improve when traditional course delivery is integrated with online learning (Stacey & Gerbic, 2007 ). Such improvement as noted may be an indicator of blended learning effectiveness. Our study however, delves into improved performance but seeks to establish the potential of blended learning effectiveness by considering grades obtained in a blended learning experiment. Score 50 and above is considered a pass in this study’s setting and learners scoring this and above will be considered to have passed. This will make our conclusions about the potential of blended learning effectiveness.

Regarding knowledge construction, it has been noted that effective learning occurs where learners are actively involved (Nurmela, Palonen, Lehtinen & Hakkarainen, 2003 , cited in Zhu, 2012 ) and this may be an indicator of learning environment effectiveness. Effective blended learning would require that learners are able to initiate, discover and accomplish the processes of knowledge construction as antecedents of blended learning effectiveness. A study by Rahman, Yasin and Jusoff ( 2011 ) indicated that learners were able to use some steps to construct meaning through an online discussion process through assignments given. In the process of giving and receiving among themselves, the authors noted that learners learned by writing what they understood. From our perspective, this can be considered to be accomplishment in the knowledge construction process. Their study further shows that learners construct meaning individually from assignments and this stage is referred to as pre-construction which for our study, is an aspect of discovery in the knowledge construction process.

Predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Researchers have dealt with success factors for online learning or those for traditional face-to-face learning but little is known about factors that predict blended learning effectiveness in view of learner characteristics and blended learning design features. This part of our study seeks to establish the learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features that predict blended learning effectiveness with regard to satisfaction, outcomes, motivation and knowledge construction. Song, Singleton, Hill, and Koh ( 2004 ) examined online learning effectiveness factors and found out that time management (a self-regulatory factor) was crucial for successful online learning. Eom, Wen, and Ashill ( 2006 ) using a survey found out that interaction, among other factors, was significant for learner satisfaction. Technical problems with regard to instructional design were a challenge to online learners thus not indicating effectiveness (Song et al., 2004 ), though the authors also indicated that descriptive statistics to a tune of 75% and time management (62%) impact on success of online learning. Arbaugh ( 2000 ) and Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that high levels of learner-instructor interaction are associated with high levels of user satisfaction and learning outcomes. A study by Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) indicated that technology and learner interactions, among other factors, influenced learner satisfaction in blended learning.

Objective and research questions of the current study

The objective of the current study is to investigate the effectiveness of blended learning in view of student satisfaction, knowledge construction, performance and intrinsic motivation and how they are related to student characteristics and blended learning design features in a blended learning environment.

Research questions

What are the student characteristics and blended learning design features for an effective blended learning environment?

Which factors (among the learner characteristics and blended learning design features) predict student satisfaction, learning outcomes, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction?

Conceptual model of the present study

The reviewed literature clearly shows learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features play a part in blended learning effectiveness and some of them are significant predictors of effectiveness. The conceptual model for our study is depicted as follows (Fig.  1 ):

Conceptual model of the current study

Research design

This research applies a quantitative design where descriptive statistics are used for the student characteristics and design features data, t-tests for the age and gender variables to determine if they are significant in blended learning effectiveness and regression for predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

This study is based on an experiment in which learners participated during their study using face-to-face sessions and an on-line session of a blended learning design. A learning management system (Moodle) was used and learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features were measured in relation to learning effectiveness. It is therefore a planning evaluation research design as noted by Guskey ( 2000 ) since the outcomes are aimed at blended learning implementation at MMU. The plan under which the various variables were tested involved face-to-face study at the beginning of a 17 week semester which was followed by online teaching and learning in the second half of the semester. The last part of the semester was for another face-to-face to review work done during the online sessions and final semester examinations. A questionnaire with items on student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes was distributed among students from three schools and one directorate of postgraduate studies.

Participants

Cluster sampling was used to select a total of 238 learners to participate in this study. Out of the whole university population of students, three schools and one directorate were used. From these, one course unit was selected from each school and all the learners following the course unit were surveyed. In the school of Education ( n  = 70) and Business and Management Studies ( n  = 133), sophomore students were involved due to the fact that they have been introduced to ICT basics during their first year of study. Students of the third year were used from the department of technology in the School of Applied Sciences and Technology ( n  = 18) since most of the year two courses had a lot of practical aspects that could not be used for the online learning part. From the Postgraduate Directorate ( n  = 17), first and second year students were selected because learners attend a face-to-face session before they are given paper modules to study away from campus.

The study population comprised of 139 male students representing 58.4% and 99 females representing 41.6% with an average age of 24 years.

Instruments

The end of semester results were used to measure learner performance. The online self-regulated learning questionnaire (Barnard, Lan, To, Paton, & Lai, 2009 ) and the intrinsic motivation inventory (Deci & Ryan, 1982 ) were applied to measure the constructs on self regulation in the student characteristics and motivation in the learning outcome constructs. Other self-developed instruments were used for the other remaining variables of attitudes, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, satisfaction, knowledge construction, technology quality, interactions, learning management system tools and resources and face-to-face support.

Instrument reliability

Cronbach’s alpha was used to test reliability and the table below gives the results. All the scales and sub-scales had acceptable internal consistency reliabilities as shown in Table  1 below:

Data analysis

First, descriptive statistics was conducted. Shapiro-Wilk test was done to test normality of the data for it to qualify for parametric tests. The test results for normality of our data before the t- test resulted into significant levels (Male = .003, female = .000) thereby violating the normality assumption. We therefore used the skewness and curtosis results which were between −1.0 and +1.0 and assumed distribution to be sufficiently normal to qualify the data for a parametric test, (Pallant, 2010 ). An independent samples t -test was done to find out the differences in male and female performance to explain the gender characteristics in blended learning effectiveness. A one-way ANOVA between subjects was conducted to establish the differences in performance between age groups. Finally, multiple regression analysis was done between student variables and design elements with learning outcomes to determine the significant predictors for blended learning effectiveness.

Student characteristics, blended learning design features and learning outcomes ( RQ1 )

A t- test was carried out to establish the performance of male and female learners in the blended learning set up. This was aimed at finding out if male and female learners do perform equally well in blended learning given their different roles and responsibilities in society. It was found that male learners performed slightly better ( M  = 62.5) than their female counterparts ( M  = 61.1). An independent t -test revealed that the difference between the performances was not statistically significant ( t  = 1.569, df = 228, p  = 0.05, one tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means is small with effect size ( d  = 0.18). A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted on the performance of different age groups to establish the performance of learners of young and middle aged age groups (20–30, young & and 31–39, middle aged). This revealed a significant difference in performance (F(1,236 = 8.498, p < . 001).

Average percentages of the items making up the self regulated learning scale are used to report the findings about all the sub-scales in the learner characteristics/background scale. Results show that learner self-regulation was good enough at 72.3% in all the sub-scales of goal setting, environment structuring, task strategies, time management, help-seeking and self-evaluation among learners. The least in the scoring was task strategies at 67.7% and the highest was learner environment structuring at 76.3%. Learner attitude towards blended learning environment is at 76% in the sub-scales of learner autonomy, quality of instructional materials, course structure, course interface and interactions. The least scored here is attitude to course structure at 66% and their attitudes were high on learner autonomy and course interface both at 82%. Results on the learners’ computer competences are summarized in percentages in the table below (Table  2 ):

It can be seen that learners are skilled in word processing at 91%, email at 63.5%, spreadsheets at 68%, web browsers at 70.2% and html tools at 45.4%. They are therefore good enough in word processing and web browsing. Their computer confidence levels are reported at 75.3% and specifically feel very confident when it comes to working with a computer (85.7%). Levels of family and social support for learners during blended learning experiences are at 60.5 and 75% respectively. There is however a low score on learners being assisted by family members in situations of computer setbacks (33.2%) as 53.4% of the learners reported no assistance in this regard. A higher percentage (85.3%) is reported on learners getting support from family regarding provision of essentials for learning such as tuition. A big percentage of learners spend two hours on study while at home (35.3%) followed by one hour (28.2%) while only 9.7% spend more than three hours on study at home. Peers showed great care during the blended learning experience (81%) and their experiences were appreciated by the society (66%). Workload management by learners vis-à-vis studying is good at 60%. Learners reported that their workmates stand in for them at workplaces to enable them do their study in blended learning while 61% are encouraged by their bosses to go and improve their skills through further education and training. On the time spent on other activities not related to study, majority of the learners spend three hours (35%) while 19% spend 6 hours. Sixty percent of the learners have to answer to someone when they are not attending to other activities outside study compared to the 39.9% who do not and can therefore do study or those other activities.

The usability of the online system, tools and resources was below average as shown in the table below in percentages (Table  3 ):

However, learners became skilled at navigating around the learning management system (79%) and it was easy for them to locate course content, tools and resources needed such as course works, news, discussions and journal materials. They effectively used the communication tools (60%) and to work with peers by making posts (57%). They reported that online resources were well organized, user friendly and easy to access (71%) as well as well structured in a clear and understandable manner (72%). They therefore recommended the use of online resources for other course units in future (78%) because they were satisfied with them (64.3%). On the whole, the online resources were fine for the learners (67.2%) and useful as a learning resource (80%). The learners’ perceived usefulness/satisfaction with online system, tools, and resources was at 81% as the LMS tools helped them to communicate, work with peers and reflect on their learning (74%). They reported that using moodle helped them to learn new concepts, information and gaining skills (85.3%) as well as sharing what they knew or learned (76.4%). They enjoyed the course units (78%) and improved their skills with technology (89%).

Learner interactions were seen from three angles of cognitivism, collaborative learning and student-teacher interactions. Collaborative learning was average at 50% with low percentages in learners posting challenges to colleagues’ ideas online (34%) and posting ideas for colleagues to read online (37%). They however met oftentimes online (60%) and organized how they would work together in study during the face-to-face meetings (69%). The common form of communication medium frequently used by learners during the blended learning experience was by phone (34.5%) followed by whatsapp (21.8%), face book (21%), discussion board (11.8%) and email (10.9%). At the cognitive level, learners interacted with content at 72% by reading the posted content (81%), exchanging knowledge via the LMS (58.4%), participating in discussions on the forum (62%) and got course objectives and structure introduced during the face-to-face sessions (86%). Student-teacher interaction was reported at 71% through instructors individually working with them online (57.2%) and being well guided towards learning goals (81%). They did receive suggestions from instructors about resources to use in their learning (75.3%) and instructors provided learning input for them to come up with their own answers (71%).

The technology quality during the blended learning intervention was rated at 69% with availability of 72%, quality of the resources was at 68% with learners reporting that discussion boards gave right content necessary for study (71%) and the email exchanges containing relevant and much needed information (63.4%) as well as chats comprising of essential information to aid the learning (69%). Internet reliability was rated at 66% with a speed considered averagely good to facilitate online activities (63%). They however reported that there was intermittent breakdown during online study (67%) though they could complete their internet program during connection (63.4%). Learners eventually found it easy to download necessary materials for study in their blended learning experiences (71%).

Learner extent of use of the learning management system features was as shown in the table below in percentage (Table  4 ):

From the table, very rarely used features include the blog and wiki while very often used ones include the email, forum, chat and calendar.

The effectiveness of the LMS was rated at 79% by learners reporting that they found it useful (89%) and using it makes their learning activities much easier (75.2%). Moodle has helped learners to accomplish their learning tasks more quickly (74%) and that as a LMS, it is effective in teaching and learning (88%) with overall satisfaction levels at 68%. However, learners note challenges in the use of the LMS regarding its performance as having been problematic to them (57%) and only 8% of the learners reported navigation while 16% reported access as challenges.

Learner attitudes towards Face-to-face support were reported at 88% showing that the sessions were enjoyable experiences (89%) with high quality class discussions (86%) and therefore recommended that the sessions should continue in blended learning (89%). The frequency of the face-to-face sessions is shown in the table below as preferred by learners (Table  5 ).

Learners preferred face-to-face sessions after every month in the semester (33.6%) and at the beginning of the blended learning session only (27.7%).

Learners reported high intrinsic motivation levels with interest and enjoyment of tasks at 83.7%, perceived competence at 70.2%, effort/importance sub-scale at 80%, pressure/tension reported at 54%. The pressure percentage of 54% arises from learners feeling nervous (39.2%) and a lot of anxiety (53%) while 44% felt a lot of pressure during the blended learning experiences. Learners however reported the value/usefulness of blended learning at 91% with majority believing that studying online and face-to-face had value for them (93.3%) and were therefore willing to take part in blended learning (91.2%). They showed that it is beneficial for them (94%) and that it was an important way of studying (84.3%).

Learner satisfaction was reported at 81% especially with instructors (85%) high percentage reported on encouraging learner participation during the course of study 93%, course content (83%) with the highest being satisfaction with the good relationship between the objectives of the course units and the content (90%), technology (71%) with a high percentage on the fact that the platform was adequate for the online part of the learning (76%), interactions (75%) with participation in class at 79%, and face-to-face sessions (91%) with learner satisfaction high on face-to-face sessions being good enough for interaction and giving an overview of the courses when objectives were introduced at 92%.

Learners’ knowledge construction was reported at 78% with initiation and discovery scales scoring 84% with 88% specifically for discovering the learning points in the course units. The accomplishment scale in knowledge construction scored 71% and specifically the fact that learners were able to work together with group members to accomplish learning tasks throughout the study of the course units (79%). Learners developed reports from activities (67%), submitted solutions to discussion questions (68%) and did critique peer arguments (69%). Generally, learners performed well in blended learning in the final examination with an average pass of 62% and standard deviation of 7.5.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness ( RQ 2)

A standard multiple regression analysis was done taking learner characteristics/background and design features as predictor variables and learning outcomes as criterion variables. The data was first tested to check if it met the linear regression test assumptions and results showed the correlations between the independent variables and each of the dependent variables (highest 0.62 and lowest 0.22) as not being too high, which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem in our model. From the coefficients table, the VIF values ranged from 1.0 to 2.4, well below the cut off value of 10 and indicating no possibility of multicollinearity. The normal probability plot was seen to lie as a reasonably straight diagonal from bottom left to top right indicating normality of our data. Linearity was found suitable from the scatter plot of the standardized residuals and was rectangular in distribution. Outliers were no cause for concern in our data since we had only 1% of all cases falling outside 3.0 thus proving the data as a normally distributed sample. Our R -square values was at 0.525 meaning that the independent variables explained about 53% of the variance in overall satisfaction, motivation and knowledge construction of the learners. All the models explaining the three dependent variables of learner satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction were significant at the 0.000 probability level (Table  6 ).

From the table above, design features (technology quality and online tools and resources), and learner characteristics (attitudes to blended learning, self-regulation) were significant predictors of learner satisfaction in blended learning. This means that good technology with the features involved and the learner positive attitudes with capacity to do blended learning with self drive led to their satisfaction. The design features (technology quality, interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation and social support), were found to be significant predictors of learner knowledge construction. This implies that learners’ capacity to go on their work by themselves supported by peers and high levels of interaction using the quality technology led them to construct their own ideas in blended learning. Design features (technology quality, online tools and resources as well as learner interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation), significantly predicted the learners’ intrinsic motivation in blended learning suggesting that good technology, tools and high interaction levels with independence in learning led to learners being highly motivated. Finally, none of the independent variables considered under this study were predictors of learning outcomes (grade).

In this study we have investigated learning outcomes as dependent variables to establish if particular learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features are related to the outcomes for blended learning effectiveness and if they predict learning outcomes in blended learning. We took students from three schools out of five and one directorate of post-graduate studies at a Ugandan University. The study suggests that the characteristics and design features examined are good drivers towards an effective blended learning environment though a few of them predicted learning outcomes in blended learning.

Student characteristics/background, blended learning design features and learning outcomes

The learner characteristics, design features investigated are potentially important for an effective blended learning environment. Performance by gender shows a balance with no statistical differences between male and female. There are statistically significant differences ( p  < .005) in the performance between age groups with means of 62% for age group 20–30 and 67% for age group 31 –39. The indicators of self regulation exist as well as positive attitudes towards blended learning. Learners do well with word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets and web browsers but still lag below average in html tools. They show computer confidence at 75.3%; which gives prospects for an effective blended learning environment in regard to their computer competence and confidence. The levels of family and social support for learners stand at 61 and 75% respectively, indicating potential for blended learning to be effective. The learners’ balance between study and work is a drive factor towards blended learning effectiveness since their management of their workload vis a vis study time is at 60 and 61% of the learners are encouraged to go for study by their bosses. Learner satisfaction with the online system and its tools shows prospect for blended learning effectiveness but there are challenges in regard to locating course content and assignments, submitting their work and staying on a task during online study. Average collaborative, cognitive learning as well as learner-teacher interactions exist as important factors. Technology quality for effective blended learning is a potential for effectiveness though features like the blog and wiki are rarely used by learners. Face-to-face support is satisfactory and it should be conducted every month. There is high intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction as well as good performance in examinations ( M  = 62%, SD = 7.5); which indicates potentiality for blended learning effectiveness.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Among the design features, technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support are predictors of learner satisfaction while learner characteristics of self regulation and attitudes to blended learning are predictors of satisfaction. Technology quality and interactions are the only design features predicting learner knowledge construction, while social support, among the learner backgrounds, is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation as a learner characteristic is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation is the only learner characteristic predicting intrinsic motivation in blended learning while technology quality, online tools and interactions are the design features predicting intrinsic motivation. However, all the independent variables are not significant predictors of learning performance in blended learning.

The high computer competences and confidence is an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness as noted by Hadad ( 2007 ) and this study finds learners confident and competent enough for the effectiveness of blended learning. A lack in computer skills causes failure in e-learning and blended learning as noted by Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ). From our study findings, this is no threat for blended learning our case as noted by our results. Contrary to Cohen et al. ( 2012 ) findings that learners’ family responsibilities and hours of employment can impede their process of learning, it is not the case here since they are drivers to the blended learning process. Time conflict, as compounded by family, employment status and management support (Packham et al., 2004 ) were noted as causes of learner failure and drop out of online courses. Our results show, on the contrary, that these factors are drivers for blended learning effectiveness because learners have a good balance between work and study and are supported by bosses to study. In agreement with Selim ( 2007 ), learner positive attitudes towards e-and blended learning environments are success factors. In line with Coldwell et al. ( 2008 ), no statistically significant differences exist between age groups. We however note that Coldwel, et al dealt with young, middle-aged and old above 45 years whereas we dealt with young and middle aged only.

Learner interactions at all levels are good enough and contrary to Astleitner, ( 2000 ) that their absence makes learners withdraw, they are a drive factor here. In line with Loukis (2007) the LMS quality, reliability and ease of use lead to learning efficiency as technology quality, online tools are predictors of learner satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Face-to-face sessions should continue on a monthly basis as noted here and is in agreement with Marriot et al. ( 2004 ) who noted learner preference for it for facilitating social interaction and communication skills. High learner intrinsic motivation leads to persistence in online courses as noted by Menager-Beeley, ( 2004 ) and is high enough in our study. This implies a possibility of an effectiveness blended learning environment. The causes of learner dissatisfaction noted by Islam ( 2014 ) such as incompetence in the use of the LMS are contrary to our results in our study, while the one noted by Hara and Kling, ( 2001 ) as resulting from technical difficulties and ambiguous course instruction are no threat from our findings. Student-teacher interaction showed a relation with satisfaction according to Swan ( 2001 ) but is not a predictor in our study. Initiating knowledge construction by learners for blended learning effectiveness is exhibited in our findings and agrees with Rahman, Yasin and Jusof ( 2011 ). Our study has not agreed with Eom et al. ( 2006 ) who found learner interactions as predictors of learner satisfaction but agrees with Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) regarding technology as a predictor of learner satisfaction.

Conclusion and recommendations

An effective blended learning environment is necessary in undertaking innovative pedagogical approaches through the use of technology in teaching and learning. An examination of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes as factors for effectiveness can help to inform the design of effective learning environments that involve face-to-face sessions and online aspects. Most of the student characteristics and blended learning design features dealt with in this study are important factors for blended learning effectiveness. None of the independent variables were identified as significant predictors of student performance. These gaps are open for further investigation in order to understand if they can be significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness in a similar or different learning setting.

In planning to design and implement blended learning, we are mindful of the implications raised by this study which is a planning evaluation research for the design and eventual implementation of blended learning. Universities should be mindful of the interplay between the learner characteristics, design features and learning outcomes which are indicators of blended learning effectiveness. From this research, learners manifest high potential to take on blended learning more especially in regard to learner self-regulation exhibited. Blended learning is meant to increase learners’ levels of knowledge construction in order to create analytical skills in them. Learner ability to assess and critically evaluate knowledge sources is hereby established in our findings. This can go a long way in producing skilled learners who can be innovative graduates enough to satisfy employment demands through creativity and innovativeness. Technology being less of a shock to students gives potential for blended learning design. Universities and other institutions of learning should continue to emphasize blended learning approaches through installation of learning management systems along with strong internet to enable effective learning through technology especially in the developing world.

Abubakar, D. & Adetimirin. (2015). Influence of computer literacy on post-graduates’ use of e-resources in Nigerian University Libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice. From http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/ . Retrieved 18 Aug 2015.

Ahmad, N., & Al-Khanjari, Z. (2011). Effect of Moodle on learning: An Oman perception. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC), 1 (4), 746–752.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, T. (2004). Theory and Practice of Online Learning . Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in internet-basedMBAcourses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63 (4), 9–18.

Article   Google Scholar  

Askar, P. & Altun, A. (2008). Learner satisfaction on blended learning. E-Leader Krakow , 2008.

Astleitner, H. (2000) Dropout and distance education. A review of motivational and emotional strategies to reduce dropout in web-based distance education. In Neuwe Medien in Unterricht, Aus-und Weiterbildung Waxmann Munster, New York.

Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. (2009). Measuring self regulation in online and blended learning environments’. Internet and Higher Education, 12 (1), 1–6.

Beard, L. A., Harper, C., & Riley, G. (2004). Online versus on-campus instruction: student attitudes & perceptions. TechTrends, 48 (6), 29–31.

Berenson, R., Boyles, G., & Weaver, A. (2008). Emotional intelligence as a predictor for success in online learning. International Review of Research in open & Distance Learning, 9 (2), 1–16.

Blocker, J. M., & Tucker, G. (2001). Using constructivist principles in designing and integrating online collaborative interactions. In F. Fuller & R. McBride (Eds.), Distance education. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 32–36). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 457 822.

Cohen, K. E., Stage, F. K., Hammack, F. M., & Marcus, A. (2012). Persistence of master’s students in the United States: Developing and testing of a conceptual model . USA: PhD Dissertation, New York University.

Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T., & Mustard, J. (2008). Online students: Relationships between participation, demographics and academic performance. The Electronic Journal of e-learning, 6 (1), 19–30.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1982). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Available from selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2016.

Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and McLean model of information systems success: A Ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9–30.

Demirkol, M., & Kazu, I. Y. (2014). Effect of blended environment model on high school students’ academic achievement. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13 (1), 78–87.

Eom, S., Wen, H., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: an empirical investigation’. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4 (2), 215–235.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (2), 95–105.

Goyal, E., & Tambe, S. (2015). Effectiveness of Moodle-enabled blended learning in private Indian Business School teaching NICHE programs. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5 (2), 14–22.

Green, J., Nelson, G., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. (2006). The causal ordering of self-concept and academic motivation and its effect on academic achievement. International Education Journal, 7 (4), 534–546.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development . Thousands Oaks: Corwin Press.

Hadad, W. (2007). ICT-in-education toolkit reference handbook . InfoDev. from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.301.html . Retrieved 04 Aug 2015.

Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2001). Student distress in web-based distance education. Educause Quarterly. 3 (2001).

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2001). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Hofmann, J. (2014). Solutions to the top 10 challenges of blended learning. Top 10 challenges of blended learning. Available on cedma-europe.org .

Islam, A. K. M. N. (2014). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: A critical incident technique approach. Computers in Human Behaviour, 30 , 249–261.

Kelley, D. H. & Gorham, J. (2009) Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37 (3), 198–207.

Kenney, J., & Newcombe, E. (2011). Adopting a blended learning approach: Challenges, encountered and lessons learned in an action research study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15 (1), 45–57.

Kintu, M. J., & Zhu, C. (2016). Student characteristics and learning outcomes in a blended learning environment intervention in a Ugandan University. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14 (3), 181–195.

Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, L. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14 (1), 16–39.

Kwak, D. W., Menezes, F. M., & Sherwood, C. (2013). Assessing the impact of blended learning on student performance. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–136.

Lim, D. H., & Kim, H. J. (2003). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31 (4), 423–439.

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learner outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 282–293.

Lin, B., & Vassar, J. A. (2009). Determinants for success in online learning communities. International Journal of Web-based Communities, 5 (3), 340–350.

Loukis, E., Georgiou, S. & Pazalo, K. (2007). A value flow model for the evaluation of an e-learning service. ECIS, 2007 Proceedings, paper 175.

Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5 (2), 1–16.

Marriot, N., Marriot, P., & Selwyn. (2004). Accounting undergraduates’ changing use of ICT and their views on using the internet in higher education-A Research note. Accounting Education, 13 (4), 117–130.

Menager-Beeley, R. (2004). Web-based distance learning in a community college: The influence of task values on task choice, retention and commitment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (9-A), 3191.

Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11 , 185–200.

Nurmela, K., Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E. & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Developing tools for analysing CSCL process. In Wasson, B. Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, V. (eds), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp 333–342). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer.

Osgerby, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Accounting Education, 22 (1), 85–99.

Oxford Group, (2013). Blended learning-current use, challenges and best practices. From http://www.kineo.com/m/0/blended-learning-report-202013.pdf . Accessed on 17 Mar 2016.

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., & Thomas, B. (2004). E-learning and retention key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education and Training, 46 (6–7), 335–342.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Mannual (4th ed.). Maidenhead: OUP McGraw-Hill.

Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 207–217.

Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators . New York, USA: Sloan-C.

Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25 (4), 401–426.

Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47 (2), 222–244.

Rahman, S. et al, (2011). Knowledge construction process in online learning. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 8 (2), 488–492.

Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. Computers & Education, 6 (1), 1–16.

Sankaran, S., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on performance: A study in Web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28 (3), 191–198.

Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49 (2), 396–413.

Shraim, K., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2010). An e-learning approach to secondary education in Palestine: opportunities and challenges. Information Technology for Development, 16 (3), 159–173.

Shrain, K. (2012). Moving towards e-learning paradigm: Readiness of higher education instructors in Palestine. International Journal on E-Learning, 11 (4), 441–463.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics’. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (1), 59–70.

Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2007). Teaching for blended learning: research perspectives from on-campus and distance students. Education and Information Technologies, 12 , 165–174.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22 (2), 306–331.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Thompson, E. (2004). Distance education drop-out: What can we do? In R. Pospisil & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Learning Through Teaching (Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, pp. 324–332). Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.

Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 224–235.

Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to drop-out of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13 (3), 115–127.

Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–137.

Zielinski, D. (2000). Can you keep learners online? Training, 37 (3), 64–75.

Download references

Authors’ contribution

MJK conceived the study idea, developed the conceptual framework, collected the data, analyzed it and wrote the article. CZ gave the technical advice concerning the write-up and advised on relevant corrections to be made before final submission. EK did the proof-reading of the article as well as language editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mountains of the Moon University, P.O. Box 837, Fort Portal, Uganda

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Edmond Kagambe

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, 1050, Ixelles, Belgium

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Chang Zhu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mugenyi Justice Kintu .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kintu, M.J., Zhu, C. & Kagambe, E. Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14 , 7 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Download citation

Received : 13 July 2016

Accepted : 23 November 2016

Published : 06 February 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Blended learning effectiveness
• Learner characteristics
• Design features
• Learning outcomes and significant predictors

REVIEW article

Blended learning in higher education: diversifying models and practical recommendations for researchers.

• 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, North-Eastern Federal University, Yakutsk, Russia
• 2 Department of Humanities, Financial University Under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia
• 3 Director of Science Center “Intellectual Nation,” Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan
• 4 Head of the Department of Theory and History of Journalism, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia
• 5 Department of State and Legal Disciplines, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, Russia
• 6 Independent Researcher, Gaziantep, Turkey

Blended learning is gaining popularity because it has shown to be a successful method for accommodating an increasingly varied student body while enhancing the learning environment by incorporating online teaching materials. Higher education research on blended learning contributes to the blended learning literature. The ideas for future researchers are a vital component of research-based research articles. This study aims to consolidate the recommendations made for future studies. Research articles published in Scope-indexed journals over the past 5 years were analyzed in this context. Each cited passage from the research was read and coded independently in this analysis. After a period of time, the codes were merged into categories and themes. In the results section, direct citations were used to support the codes. The number of publications increased starting in 2017 and continuing through 2020. In the year 2020, most articles were published. Approximately half of the publications provide recommendations for future research. The researchers’ recommendations were gathered under the titles “Research Content” and “Replication and Method” the researchers’ recommendations were gathered.

Introduction

Definition of blended learning.

In November 2002, a few colleagues attending the Annual Sloan-C Conference on Online Learning in Orlando, Florida, discussed a novel phenomenon: college teachers combining face-to-face and online learning strategies and resources in their classrooms ( Picciano et al., 2014 ) was. Blended learning, also known as hybrid learning or mixed-mode education, is an instructional approach that combines the use of one or two different learning methodologies with the more conventional model of instruction in a classroom setting ( Graham, 2006 ; Lee et al., 2017 ; Thai et al., 2017 ; Vasyura et al., 2020 ). Improving data analysis and computation skills has contributed to the popularity of the blended learning instructional style ( Lu et al., 2018 ). Integration of face-to-face learning experiences in the classroom with online learning experiences in a thoughtful manner ( Garrison and Kanuka, 2004 ). Learners engage in collaborative activities utilizing various online and offline resources in a mixed learning environment. Many different models of convergence between technologically enabled settings and more conventional ones, such as virtual labs, have been proposed ( De Jong et al., 2013 ). Graham (2013) examined the many definitions of blended learning. He concluded that the word is most frequently used to refer to the practice of combining traditional face-to-face education with online learning.

Current State in Blended Learning

There are several recommendations available online on the appropriate face-to-face interaction ratio. For instance, 50 % of teaching can be completed online and 50 % in person ( Bernard et al., 2009 ). However, Allen et al. (2007) suggest that the percentage of online classes should be anywhere between 30 and 79 %. Also, experts recommend a blending ratio of 60 % e-Learning and 40 % face-to-face learning for blended learning ( Banyen et al., 2016 ).

On college and university campuses, the use of blended learning as a method of instruction is experiencing rapid growth ( Bernard et al., 2009 ; Porter et al., 2014 ; ElSayary, 2021 ; Chen, 2022 ). Researchers have carried out implementation and study with the presumption that the blended learning application offers various advantages. They used blended learning in higher education studies ( Suleri and Suleri, 2018 ).

These blended approaches encourage both individual learning and cooperation ( Lim and Wang, 2016 ; Talan and Gulsecen, 2019 ) and enable more channels of communication among students as well as between students and their teachers ( McCutcheon et al., 2018 ; Shu and Gu, 2018 ). Blended learning classes offer a unique environment in which to analyze the level of involvement shown by students ( Hasanah and Malik, 2020 ). For students to successfully engage in the online components of the course, they will need to develop skills for navigating the various modalities of teaching and increasing their self-motivation level ( Norberg et al., 2011 ; Baragash and Al-Samarraie, 2018 ; Bervell et al., 2020 ). It is believed that blended learning is a significant factor in determining academic achievement ( Bernard et al., 2009 ; Means et al., 2013 ), student satisfaction ( Zeqiri and Alserhan, 2021 ), and student retention rates ( Pye et al., 2015 ).

It has been voiced in different studies ( Cortez, 2020 ; de Brito Lima et al., 2021 ) that there is a “new normal” in many educational institutions and disciplines after COVID-19 and that blended learning approach has gained serious popularity in this context.

Blended learning preserves student-teacher connection and peer learning. Still, it also can be more adaptable because students may access a portion of their coursework online and the amount of time they need to spend in the classroom can be reduced ( Phillips et al., 2016 ).

Some students have voiced issues ( Maarop and Embi, 2016 ) with the design of courses that combine online with in-class delivery, although blended learning is appealing to institutions and has unrealized potential ( Wang et al., 2015 ; Andreev et al., 2022 ). Blended learning courses combine online with in-class delivery ( Bruff et al., 2013 ; Medina, 2018 ; Smolyaninova et al., 2021 ). Data indicates that the amount of student accomplishment influences the degree to which one is satisfied with blended learning ( Owston et al., 2013 ; Fisher et al., 2017 ).

The Importance of Recommendation for Future Studies

In addition to carrying out research responsibly, accurately reporting its findings is also an essential step ( Pruzan, 2016 ). The fact that suggestions for future researchers are written in method books is considered important in terms of the research’s quality and its Contribution To The Field. According to Sahu (2013) , it is reasonable to anticipate that a successful research program will pave the way for many subsequent research initiatives. Each research report has a portion that focuses on how to expand or continue the current research program to shed more light on the knowledge base and resolve other connected programs that are working along the same lines as the recent research activity ( Belonovskaya et al., 2021 ). A good researcher should also discuss in this part what limitations or gaps exist in the current study program and how these limitations might be solved in a future research program ( Sahu, 2013 ). An essential component of the study report is the acceptance of suggestions, which indicate how the quality of future work may be enhanced and new routes for the continuation of research. These kinds of remarks can inspire ideas for additional study, point out areas that need to be addressed to improve the subject and serve as a valuable roadmap for rookie and expert researchers. An indication to the reader that the author has finished one stage of the research process and is contemplating moving on to the next step is for the author to state directions for future study in the conclusion of the research that is being prepared for publication ( Mackey and Gass, 2015 ). No study was discovered in examining the literature that investigated the suggestion for future research portions of the studies on the subject of blended learning. Due to this, the previous research section could not be mentioned in the study. This work will contribute significantly in terms of offering a collective suggestion to future scholars on the subject of blended learning. In addition, it contributes to the research methodology by restating in broad terms the significance of the content of “recommendations for future researchers.”

In light of this, the purpose of this study was to investigate the recommendations made for further research in the publications that have been published during the past 5 years on blended learning in higher education.

Materials and Methods

This study may be categorized as a qualitative study since it is based on qualitative data analysis on data that was already published in other studies. As a result of the fact that the bibliometric information for the publications received throughout the study is also investigated, this information may also be assessed as part of the bibliometric study.

Data Collection

Scopus, one of the most widely used databases, was chosen to collect data. Scopus aids the research workflow’s efficacy and efficiency ( Why choose Scopus - Scopus benefits | Elsevier solutions, 2018 ). Scopus was selected as the database of choice since it indexes the top journals in the field of education and offers the necessary data for bibliometric research. “Blended Learning” and “Higher Education” were used as the study’s search keys. In the study, the last 5 (2017–2021) years and the conditions of being a published article were added. As a result of the first search, 2657 articles were obtained. Since the publications will be included in the content analysis, the restriction that the broadcast language is English has been added. As a result of the search, 1958 articles were identified. The obtained data were downloaded in CVS format for analysis.

As seen in Figure 1 , the selection and elimination process of the publications has been started. The 1958 article was primarily examined for duplication. Nine articles that did not meet the requirement were excluded from the study. The titles and abstracts of the 1949 article were reviewed. Studies that did not meet the following conditions were excluded from the scope.

Figure 1. Flowchart on data collection.

(1) Being based on research

(2) no theoretical work or conceptual paper

(3) No meta-analysis and meta-synthesis work

(4) No systematic literature review study

(5) Not focusing only on distance education or face-to-face education

(6) Related to higher education

(7) Publication in English

As a result of the scanning, 1406 publications were excluded from the scope of the studies.

At the next stage, the full texts of the studies were reached. Content analysis of the study was carried out, and it was examined in detail whether it complied with the above conditions. As a result of the last review, 225 publications were excluded. There are 318 publications left for content analysis.

Data Analyzes

The articles retrieved as a consequence of scanning through the database were investigated in-depth, and it was determined whether or not they fulfilled the requirements of the research objective. At the level of deep analysis, the first thing that is done is to determine whether or not there is a distinct area for “recommendations for future studies.” It has been pointed out that articles on this topic often include headings like “the limitations of the study,” “Limitations,” “Recommendations” and “Research Implications.” Then we check that there is any recommendation for future researchers. In the following phase, if there is no particular section, other parts of the paper, such as the conclusion and discussion, were analyzed, and recommendations for future researchers were cited. Two authors are responsible for controlling all articles separately and determining excerpt-related sections. Then all teams read independently and coded each excerpt. To assure reliability, the codes were refined until a consensus about their use could be reached. Code reliability was accepted 100 %. Then the codes were merged to form categories and themes. In the findings section, direct quotations were included to support the Codes.

While presenting the study data, statistical information about the publications was first shared, and then the findings obtained from the content analysis were shared.

There was a rise in the number of publications beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2020 ( Figure 2 ). The year 2020 saw the greatest number of publications. Even though there is a reduction in 2021, it is still significantly greater than in previous years. It is possible that the mandatory implementation of blended and remote learning procedures as a result of the pandemic caused the surge that occurred in the years 2020 and 2021.

Figure 2. Number of articles over year.

As shown in Figure 3 , according to total citation, Computer and Education is the first rank. The second rank is “Internet and Higher Education.” Based on the number of articles, the first rank is “Education and Information Technologies” and the second order is “BMC Medical Education” with ten articles. The last rank is “SAGE Open” with four articles and 53 citations. Due to the technology dimension in blended learning, journals related to technology and the internet have naturally come to the fore.

Figure 3. Compare the article’s number and total citation based on journal.

When the papers with the highest citations were analyzed ( Table 1 ), they were connected to the flipped classroom concept, which falls under the umbrella of blended learning. Although it was released later than the other nine studies, the one by Han and Ellis (2019) made it onto the list of the top ten. There are several research approaches and methodologies. Studies that follow participants over time are known as longitudinal studies. Other types of studies include qualitative and experimental research.

Table 1. Top 10 most cited article.

When the studies are analyzed ( Figure 4 ), it is found that 66 of the studies have a distinct part labeled “recommendations” “Future research” or “the limitations of the study” in which recommendations and proposals for more research might be made. In addition, 43 of the papers feature additional parts that contain recommendations for the continued study of blended learning. The word “suggestions” was used as the heading for 23 different articles that offered advice to professional practitioners. 111 of the 251 papers that did not have a distinct title for their suggestions had textual advice for future study. These recommendations were written in the articles. These recommendations were often provided in the form of a distinct paragraph inside the “result” section; however, in certain instances, they were voiced within the discussion sections of the respective articles. There was no future study suggestion on blended learning in any of the remaining 140 of the 251 publications.

Figure 4. Connection separate section and recommendations for future studies.

When we classify according to the fields of the studies examined, 53 studies are composed of non-specific studies. Thirty-one studies are related to the STEM field covering physics, chemistry, mathematics, science, engineering, and environmental education. Considering the 21 studies in the field of health education together, the STEM field has the highest rate with a total of 52 studies. Language education comes next with 31 studies. The other 18 studies were conducted in social science, adult education, sport, and social work.

Content analysis was performed in the “future research proposals” section. These recommendations fall into two main categories ( Figure 5 ). At the first level, they are research content, replication, and method. The codes in the first category are “Other data collection tools,” “Arranging other activities” and “Focusing on components.”

Figure 5. Code and categories.

The authors recommended collecting data from other data sources during the research process. The researcher may have offered such suggestions because they had difficulties collecting in their context or because they needed different data to enrich the process. Other Data Collection Tools code is used for 80 studies.

In the study conducted by Gjestvang et al. (2021) , interviews were done with the participants during the data collection process. Based on this result, they stated that “ Further research on this topic should interview blended learning students at the end of the program ” in the recommendations.

Also, “ Further study should also focus on variables such as the participants’ English level, motivation level, autonomy level, learning style, and gender while measuring students’ perceptions of the blended course ” ( Wang et al., 2021 ) and “ Further studies are planned to monitor the engagement, satisfaction, and learning outcomes of students as the subject evolves over a series of semesters. ” Fisher et al. (2017) quotes were made to more than one data collection tool. The inclusion of such data collection aspects will also differentiate the research process.

The second code is “arranging other activities”: this code includes suggestions for differentiating the activities done in the learning process. It is coded in 19 articles. For example, “ future research can focus on investigating student engagement in learning scenarios aimed at presenting new content rather than being limited to revision lessons ( de Brito Lima et al., 2021 ).” As stated, it is recommended that future studies produce new content.

It is suggested to include other activities according to the course scope in which the blended learning process is applied. These suggestions are mostly seen in studies where language teaching is used. For example, a “ Conducting similar studies that measure the effect of blended learning on some aspects related to English learning such as vocabulary, spelling, and pronunciation ” recommendation was presented based on the results of the study in which blended learning was applied in English teaching by Hijazi and AlNatour (2020) .

The other code is “Focusing on other components.” In this coding, blended learning is used regarding the subject of the applied course and other components related to the concept taught. This code was used in 20 studies. In the survey conducted by Hasanah and Malik (2020) , the “ Future researchers are expected to widen the implementation of the blended learning model not only in the employability aspects related to critical thinking and communication skills but also in other competencies based on the discipline on which they focus. ” proposal was presented. Similarly, based on the result of the study by Mese and Dursun (2019) , “ future studies could conduct with different kind of elements .” was proposed. In addition, in the survey by Nurkhin et al. (2020) , suggestions were made on the use of LMS, which is a component of blended learning. The quote in the study is as follows: “ It is hoped that future researchers will be able to improve the ability of online learning management systems they can better implement blended PBL .”

The replication category contains suggestions to repeat the research under certain conditions. The authors generally support conducting studies that are somewhat similar to the investigation. In this category, “Other disciplines,” “Implementing other courses,” “Diverse sample,” “Other participants” and “Larger sample” stand out. “Deep analyzes” and “Long term effect” branches were evaluated in replications and methodology categories.

The “Other disciplines” code was generally used for studies where blended learning studies were recommended to be applied to other disciplines and was coded six times. For example, as a result of the López-Pellisa et al. (2021) survey in the writing assignment, the authors suggested, “ Future research could be expanded to other academic contexts, within and beyond the humanities, and to other languages .” In the study by Dakduk et al. (2018) , a sample was taken to cover the whole University. The authors recommended more specific studies involving different disciplines. The authors offer their suggestions: “ In future research with executive education, comparing different professional areas and program content (finance, marketing, human resources, and management) should be considered since those variables could modify the relationship to adopt new technologies in executive education .”

The code of “Implementing other courses” is used for suggestions about doing studies that are done in a narrower scope or that are not done within the scope of one course within the scope of the other course. Twenty-seven articles of recommendation in this context were encountered. For example, the study by Ghazal et al. (2018) did not specify a specific course. Based on this result, the authors used the expression “ Based on these limitations, future research designs may consider examining how different types of courses and activities can influence students’ perception of the LMS environment. ” to suggest that the study be carried out within the scope of a specific course. Hinojo-Lucena et al. (2020) , on the other hand, did their work within the scope of the Applied Sciences I course. Based on the results of the study, it then proposes to do it more specifically in the courses in the second year. The authors suggest, “ For future lines of research, it is proposed to analyze this teaching and learning process in the second year of Basic Vocational Training and other modules . “ The study conducted by Bayyat (2020) wanted it to be applied in different theoretical and practical courses. The author used the phrase “ Future research can explore other dimensions in different theoretical and practical courses, cultures, and societies .” for this suggestion.

The “Other participants” code suggests that the authors should collect data from different participants in future studies. This code was used in 8 studies. In the study conducted by Manzanares et al. (2017) , only data were collected from students, and he suggested that teachers be included in future studies. The recommendation was, “ In this study, student-teacher, student-content, and student-system interactions have been analyzed. However, in future investigations, student-student and teacher-system relations will be studied to analyze whether these behavioral patterns influence the results of student learning and can predict the detection of at-risk students .” It was also stated that other data sources would be needed.

Similarly, in the study by Zimba et al. (2021) , collecting data from students and administrators was suggested. The authors stated, “ We recommend that a comparative study be conducted with social work educators in distance-teaching institutions since all participants in this study were from contact teaching institutions. We also recommend more research on BL that includes the voice of the students and university administrators .”

The work meant to be explained with the “diverse sample” code is the enrichment of the group. This code was used for 13 runs. This code includes suggestions such as collecting data across the country and collecting data from different education levels. The study by Xu et al. (2020) included students at a particular university. Based on this result, the authors proposed, “ Further studies of online learning, in more diverse settings and with random assignment of students, will be required to confirm the potential benefits of blended learning .” Similarly, “ Future research could expand the study in diverse educational settings ( Zhu et al., 2021 )” and “ Similar studies could be conducted with different participants at other educational levels to reach a general result and make comparisons ( Talan and Gulsecen, 2019 ),” it has been suggested to work with various samples by applying it at different education levels.

The “Larger sample” code is especially used by researchers working with small groups. They have recommended working with large study groups to generalize the studies. This code was used for 50 runs. The perception of the study group as small also depends on the study methodology. For example, in the study by Zeqiri and Alserhan (2021) , data were collected from 369 people. The authors suggested a “larger sample” based on the study’s results. The authors expressed this: “Finally, a larger and more balanced sample would benefit this study to generalize findings on students’ satisfaction with blended learning .” In the study conducted by Sitthiworachart et al. (2021) on the e-Business Course, there were 25 participants in the sample. Based on the study results, the authors “ further studies need to be conducted to measure the impact of the proposed blended learning activities on a larger sample or with higher-achieving students .” suggested working with a larger group. Again, according to the result of the study conducted by Moradimokhles and Hwang (2020) on 60 nurses, the statement “ Furthermore, the study could be extended to investigate these issues in other students, as the participants of this study were nursing students .” work is recommended.

The “deep analyzes” code was used eight times for studies where the authors suggested deep research should be done. According to the results of the study by Dooley et al. (2018) , the authors interact with the expression, “ Further studies are required to understand better the behavior of students interacting with online resources, and the patterns of behavior associated with engagement and academic performance ” with online resources and the patterns of behavior associated with engagement and academic performance. Again, as a result of the study by Bouilheres et al. (2020) , “ Deeper studies are needed to determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of each activity and/or learning material used in the delivery of every program having implemented a Blended Learning Model. ” is suggested to carry out a detailed study. On the other hand, Taylor et al. (2018) stated that more detailed analyzes are needed to make sense of the concepts. The authors expressed this: “ Further research could investigate more deeply the actual meanings of these terms through focus groups with both faculty and administrators. ”

Studies in which the “long-term effect” code is expressed in the limitations of a study are short-term. To express this awareness, the authors suggest that future researchers measure their long-term effects. This code has been used in 8 publications. For example, in the study by Simko et al. (2019) , the statement “ A future study should consider the long-term outcomes of flipped courses and whether reported initial successes outlast the instructors who first delivered the courses .” is included. In the study by Shimizu et al. (2019) , the expression “ we recommend future research to investigate long-term effects of bPBL ” was used.

The researchers also suggested the “Comparative Studies” code, which was used 3 times in the studies, to conduct comparison studies. Based on the results of the study conducted by Zimba et al. (2021) on social work education, the authors said, “ We recommend that a comparative study be conducted with social work educators in distance-teaching institutions since all participants in this study were from contact teaching institutions .” was suggested. On the other hand, Sanjeev and Natrajan (2019) suggested that a comparison study should be made by differentiating blended learning with the statement, “ There can be a comparative study of different formats of blended learning .”

The “Longitudinal Studies” code was used in seven studies. The researchers considered their studies cross-sectional and suggested longitudinal studies for future studies. Based on the result of the study by Yorganci (2020) , she proposed, “ Besides, longitudinal studies also should be carried out to clarify the effects of FL approach on the learning outcomes in the long term. ” Ghazal et al. (2018) suggested a longitudinal study to visualize the LMS interactions used fully. For this suggestion, the authors used the expression, “ Future studies may also consider conducting a longitudinal study to increase the ability to make causal inferences related to the students’ use of LMS .”

The “Changing methodology” code used in a total of 25 studies is one of the most common codes used by researchers. Researchers suggest that the study be repeated by changing the method or research approach. For example, in the study conducted by Yang and Kuo (2021) , they used a qualitative approach. On the other hand, researchers suggested planning experimental research with the statement, “ For future studies, pre-and post-tests on global literacy are suggested to provide statistical evidence of global literacy improvement .” The study by Engelbertink et al. (2021) used a non-experimental approach based on Interviews and online survey data. The authors were randomized with the statement, “ Further research using a Randomized Controlled Trial among our students will yield more insight into the engagement and motivation of the students using the course, its effectiveness, and the role of PT in this respect ,” proposed a study. Yick et al. (2019) said “ A qualitative research design may provide a detailed understanding about the response and preferences of students on the use of blended learning and their perceived experiences of online learning in the first year of fashion education. A pre-test and post-test design can also help examine differences in improvements in SRL and sewing techniques before and after using online modules .” suggests replicating the study by changing the method.

The number of publications increased beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2020. The number of publications peaked in the year 2020. A result of the bibliometric study covering 2012–2020 by Limaymanta et al. (2021) stated that most publications were made in 2019. This result may be due to the fact that not all publications of 2020 were included, as the study covered the period until November 2020. However, it has been determined that there has been an increase in the number of articles in recent years. In this process, the effect of the pandemic may be. During the pandemic process, many institutions have preferred online, blended learning methods ( Alsarayreh, 2020 ; Andrzej, 2020 ). Researchers have researched blended learning to examine this compulsory condition (e.g., Subandowo et al., 2020 ; Zhu et al., 2021 ).

When the studies are evaluated, it is determined that 66 of the studies have a section labeled “recommendations” “Future research” or “the limitations of the study” in which recommendations and requests for more research may be made. Additionally, 43 publications provide supplementary sections with recommendations for future study. 111 of the 251 articles without a defined title for their proposals had textual recommendations for further research. Only about half of the studies have recommendations for future research. However, this section, which is seen both as a contribution of researchers to the field and as a part of the research process ( Sahu, 2013 ; Mackey and Gass, 2015 ), has not been taken into account.

The suggestions made by the researchers were gathered under the categories of “Research Content” and “Replication and Method.” The maximum number of “Other Data Collection Tools” codes was determined in the “Research Content” category. Researchers consider it important to diversify data sources. The diversity of data in many areas provides convenience in controlling the accuracy of data in research ( Massey et al., 2016 ). Another code is “Arranging other activities.” Blended learning can have rich content, including face-to-face and online content and teaching approaches. According to Medina (2018) , if it is to serve as a support source—a means to an end—that expands the scope of traditional instructional and learning actions while simultaneously fostering independent and lifelong learning skills and practical uses of technology, effective blended learning must become more personalized, flexible, and on-demand. This situation can offer diversity to researchers. “Focusing on other components” is the last code in this category. Because there are different design approaches in blended learning design, research can focus on various components because there are different design approaches ( Alammary et al., 2014 ; Manwaring et al., 2017 ; Thai et al., 2017 ).

For the transfer of work to other domains, there are two codes in the Replication category: “Other disciplines” and “Implementing other courses.” While the first code’s researchers concentrated on various disciplinary applications by evaluating a larger region, the others were more interested in the immediate environment and proposed that it be used to analogous courses. This finding appears to be the researcher’s decision in several ways. For example, Thai et al. (2017) “To confirm the current findings and evaluate additional “blends” in higher education, this study must be replicated with students from different courses and universities” have justified the replication. In the Replication category, the “Larger sample”, “Diverse sample” and “Other participants” branches are related to the sample size. Whether the number of people in the sample is large or small depends on the research methodology ( Chatterjee and Diaconis, 2018 ; Lakens, 2022 ). But researchers care about working with a larger sample. The “larger sample” code was used the most in the codes related to sampling.

“Deep analyzes” and “Long term effect” were the codes we approved in both the replication and method categories. Both codes suggest that additional investigation into the integrated learning process is needed. Due to the variety and enrichment of the instruments employed in the blended learning process ( Engelbertink et al., 2021 ), as well as necessary processes such as the pandemic, long-term research on blended learning will be required ( Dziuban et al., 2018 ; Subandowo et al., 2020 ).

“Comparative Studies” “Cross-Cultural Studies” “Longitudinal Studies” and “Changing methodology” are all sections of the methodology category. In blended learning implementations, there is a wide range of methodologies such as quantitative approach ( Han and Ellis, 2019 ), experimental method ( Hijazi and AlNatour, 2020 ), and qualitative approach ( Taylor et al., 2018 ). With this understanding, the authors believe that their study may be applied to various situations and methodologies.

The number of publications increased starting in 2017 and continuing through 2020. In the year 2020, most articles were published. When the studies are examined, it is discovered that 66 of them have a section labeled “recommendations” “Future research” or “the limitations of the study.” In addition, 43 of the papers have sections with research recommendations. There were textual recommendations for future research in 111 of the 251 publications that did not have a label for their ideas. Approximately half of the publications provide recommendations for future research. The STEM field has the highest rate in selected studies. The researchers’ recommendations were gathered under the titles “Research Content” and “Replication and Method” the researchers’ recommendations were gathered. “Other Data Collection Tools” is the most coded category under “Research Content.” Diversification of data sources is important to researchers. The Replication category has two codes for the transfer of work to other domains: “Other disciplines” and “Implementing other courses.” The Replication category’s “Larger sample” “Diverse sample” and “Other participants” branches all deal with sample size. The study strategy determines whether the sample size is large or small. The “larger sample” code was the most common among the sampling-related codes. In both the replication and procedure categories, we accepted the codes “Deep analyzes” and “Long term effect” The category “Comparative Studies” includes subsections such as “Cross-Cultural Studies, “ “Longitudinal Studies, “ “Changing methodology” and “Methodology.”

Only publications from journals indexed in the Scopus database were included in the study, which is one of the study’s limitations. In the course of the investigation of the recommendations made in the research, content analysis was performed on the statements made by the authors. There has been no investigation into whether or not the intended published research scope is appropriate. The “Recommendations for future research” section might be examined for its level of quality by researchers in the future. It is possible to determine whether the codes produced by investigations of the same kind in several fields are field-independent. In addition, our investigation was limited to papers based on previous research. The breadth of data sources may be enlarged without more limits being added, as the focus of future research will be on theoretical investigations. In addition, it will be of use to researchers in that it will remind them of the significance of “recommendations for future research”.

Author Contributions

RP, NO, and SD contributed to conception and design of the study. SD and SBD searching database and analysis. RP and NK wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., and Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States . Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

Google Scholar

Alammary, A., Sheard, J., and Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: three different design approaches. Australas. J. Educ. Technol . 30, 643–646. doi: 10.14742/ajet.693

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alsarayreh, R. (2020). Using blended learning during COVID-19: the perceptions of school teachers in jordan. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 15, 1544–1556.

Andreev, V., Gildenberg, B., Gorbunov, V., Evdokimova, O., and Trofimova, I. (2022). The principles of the implementation of gaming technologies in a blended learning environment in a technical university. Educ. Self Dev. 99, 1–10. doi: 10.26907/esd.17.1.04

Andrzej, O. (2020). Modified blended learning in engineering higher education during the COVID-19 lockdown — building automation courses case study. Educ. Sci. 10:292.

Arrosagaray, M., González-Peiteado, M., Pino-Juste, M., and Rodríguez-López, B. (2019). A comparative study of Spanish adult students’ attitudes to ICT in classroom, blended and distance language learning modes. Comp. Educ. 134, 31–40. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.016

Banyen, W., Viriyavejakul, C., and Ratanaolarn, T. (2016). A blended learning model for learning achievement enhancement of thai undergraduate students. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (IJET) 11:48. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v11i04.5325

Baragash, R. S., and Al-Samarraie, H. (2018). Blended learning: investigating the influence of engagement in multiple learning delivery modes on students’ performance. Telematics Inform. 35, 2082–2098. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.07.010

Bayyat, M. (2020). Blended learning: a new approach to teach ballet technique for undergraduate students. Turkish Online J. Distance Educ. 21, 69–86. doi: 10.17718/tojde.727979

Belonovskaya, I., Kiryakova, A., Goriainova, T., and Drobot, M. (2021). Developing the potential of visualization technologies in hybrid tuition. Educ. Self Dev. 16, 127–144. doi: 10.26907/esd.16.3.12

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 1243–1289. doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844

Bervell, B., Nyagorme, P., and Arkorful, V. (2020). Lms-enabled blended learning use intentions among distance education tutors: examining the mediation role of attitude based on technology-related stimulus-response theoretical framework. Contemporary Educ. Technol. 12, 1–21. doi: 10.30935/cedtech/8317

Bouilheres, F., Le, L. T. V. H., McDonald, S., Nkhoma, C., and Jandug-Montera, L. (2020). Defining student learning experience through blended learning. Educ. Inform. Technol. 25, 3049–3069. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10100-y

Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., and Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrapping a MOOC: student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach. 9, 187–199.

Cabi, E. (2018). The impact of the flipped classroom model on students ’ academic achievement. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distributed Learn. 19, 202–221.

Chatterjee, S., and Diaconis, P. (2018). The sample size required in importance sampling. Annals Appl. Probability 28, 1099–1135.

Chen, L. L. (2022). Designing online discussion for hyflex learning. Int. J. Educ. Methodol. 8, 191–198. doi: 10.12973/IJEM.8.1.191

Cortez, C. P. (2020). Blended, distance, electronic and virtual-learning for the new normal of mathematics education: a senior high school student’s perception. Eur. J. Interact. Multimedia Educ. 1:e02001.

Dakduk, S., Santalla-Banderali, Z., and van der Woude, D. (2018). Acceptance of blended learning in executive education. SAGE Open 8:21582440188. doi: 10.1177/2158244018800647

de Brito Lima, F., Lautert, S. L., and Gomes, A. S. (2021). Contrasting levels of student engagement in blended and non-blended learning scenarios. Comp. Educ. 172:104241. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104241

De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., and Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 340, 305–308.

Dooley, L. M., Frankland, S., Boller, E., and Tudor, E. (2018). Implementing the flipped classroom in a veterinary pre-clinical science course: student engagement, performance, and satisfaction. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 45, 195–203. doi: 10.3138/jvme.1116-173r

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., and Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. Int. J. Educ. Technol. Higher Educ. 15:3. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5

ElSayary, A. (2021). Using a reflective practice model to teach STEM education in a blended learning environment. Eurasia J. Mathematics Sci. Technol. Educ. 17:em1942. doi: 10.29333/ejmste/9699

Engelbertink, M. M. J., Kelders, S. M., Woudt-Mittendorff, K. M., and Westerhof, G. J. (2021). Evaluating the value of persuasive technology and the role of teachers in a blended learning course for social work students. Soc. Work Educ. 40, 333–349. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2020.1715935

Fisher, R., Ross, B., LaFerriere, R., and Maritz, A. (2017). Flipped learning, flipped satisfaction, getting the balance right. Teach. Learn. Inquiry 5, 114–127. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.2.9

Garrison, D. R., and Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet Higher Educ. 7, 95–105. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001

Ghazal, S., Al-Samarraie, H., and Aldowah, H. (2018). “i am Still Learning”: modeling LMS critical success factors for promoting students’. experience and satisfaction in a blended learning environment. IEEE Access 6, 77179–77201. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2879677

Gjestvang, B., Høye, S., and Bronken, B. A. (2021). Aspiring for competence in a multifaceted everyday life: a qualitative study of adult students’ experiences of a blended learning master programme in Norway. Int. J. Nursing Sci. 8, 71–78. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.11.001

Graham, C. R. (2006). “Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future directions,” in The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs , eds C. R. Bonk and C. J. Graham (Switzerland: Pfeiffer Publishing).

Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. Handb. Distance Educ. 3, 333–350.

Han, F., and Ellis, R. A. (2019). Identifying consistent patterns of quality learning discussions in blended learning. Int. Higher Educ. 40, 12–19. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.09.002

Hasanah, H., and Malik, M. N. (2020). Blended learning in improving students’ critical thinking and communication skills at University. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 15, 1295–1306. doi: 10.18844/cjes.v15i5.5168

Hijazi, D. A., and AlNatour, A. S. (2020). The effect of using blended learning method on students’ achievement in english and their motivation towards learning it: blended learning, achievement, and motivation. Int. J. Virtual Personal Learn. Environ. 10, 83–96. doi: 10.4018/IJVPLE.2020070106

Hinojo-Lucena, F. J., Trujillo-Torres, J. M., Marín-Marín, J. A., and Rodríguez-Jiménez, C. (2020). B-Learning in basic vocational training students for the development of the module of applied sciences I. Mathematics 8:1102. doi: 10.3390/math8071102

Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., and Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. Int. J. Educ. Technol. Higher Educ. 14:7. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychol. 8:33267.

Lee, J., Lim, C., and Kim, H. (2017). Development of an instructional design model for flipped learning in higher education. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 65, 427–453. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9502-1

López-Pellisa, T., Rotger, N., and Rodrípguez-Gallego, F. (2021). Collaborative writing at work: peer feedback in a blended learning environment. Educ. Inf. Technol . 26, 1293–1310. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10312-2

Lim, C. P., and Wang, L. (2016). Blended Learning for Quality Higher Education: Selected Case Studies on Implementation from Asia-Pacific. Thailand: UNESCO Bangkok Office.

Limaymanta, C. H., Apaza-Tapia, L., Vidal, E., and Gregorio-Chaviano, O. (2021). Flipped classroom in higher education: a bibliometric analysis and proposal of a framework for its implementation. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 16, 133–149. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v16i09.21267

Lu, O. H. T., Huang, A. Y. Q., Huang, J. C. H., Lin, A. J. Q., Ogata, H., and Yang, S. J. H. (2018). Applying learning analytics for the early prediction of students’ academic performance in blended learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 21, 220–232.

Maarop, A. H., and Embi, M. A. (2016). Implementation of blended learning in higher learning institutions: a review of literature. Int. Educ. Stud. 9:41. doi: 10.5539/ies.v9n3p41

Mackey, A., and Gass, S. M. (2015). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Milton Park: Routledge.

Manwaring, K. C., Larsen, R., Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., and Halverson, L. R. (2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. Int. Higher Educ. 35, 21–33. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.002

Manzanares, M. C. S., Sánchez, R. M., García Osorio, C. I., and Díez-Pastor, J. F. (2017). How do B-learning and learning patterns influence learning outcomes? Front. Psychol. 8:745. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00745

Massey, P. M., Leader, A., Yom-Tov, E., Budenz, A., Fisher, K., and Klassen, A. C. (2016). Applying multiple data collection tools to quantify human papillomavirus vaccine communication on Twitter. J. Med. Int. Res. 18:e6670.

McCutcheon, K., O’Halloran, P., and Lohan, M. (2018). Online learning versus blended learning of clinical supervisee skills with pre-registration nursing students: a randomised controlled trial. Int. J. Nursing Stud. 82, 30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.02.005

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., and Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record 115, 1–47. doi: 10.1177/016146811311500307

Medina, L. C. (2018). Blended learning: deficits and prospects in higher education. Australasian J. Educ. Technol. 34, 42–56. doi: 10.14742/ajet.3100

Mese, C., and Dursun, O. O. (2019). Effectiveness of gamification elements in blended learning environments. Turkish Online J. Distance Educ. 20, 119–142. doi: 10.17718/tojde.601914

Moradimokhles, H., and Hwang, G. J. (2020). The effect of online vs. blended learning in developing English language skills by nursing student: an experimental study. Interact. Learn. Environ. 1–10. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1739079

Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., and Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. Horizon 19, 207–216. doi: 10.1108/10748121111163913

Nurkhin, A., Kardoyo, Pramusinto, H., Setiyani, R., and Widhiastuti, R. (2020). Applying blended problem-based learning to accounting studies in higher education; optimizing the utilization of social media for learning. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 15, 22–39. doi: 10.3991/IJET.V15I08.12201

Owston, R., York, D., and Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. Int. Higher Educ. 18, 38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.003

Phillips, J. A., Schumacher, C., and Arif, S. (2016). Time spent, workload, and student and faculty perceptions in a blended learning environment. Am. J. Pharmaceutical Educ. 80:102. doi: 10.5688/ajpe806102

Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C., and Graham, C. R. (2014). Blended Learning . London: Routledge.

Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., and Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: institutional adoption and implementation. Comp. Educ. 75, 185–195. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011

Pruzan, P. (2016). Research Methodology: the Aims, Practices and Ethics of Science. Berlin: Springer.

Pye, G., Holt, D., Salzman, S., Bellucci, E., and Lombardi, L. (2015). Engaging diverse student audiences in contemporary blended learning environments in Australian higher business education: implications for design and practice. Australasian J. Inform. Systems 19, 1–20. doi: 10.3127/ajis.v19i0.1251

Sahu, P. K. (2013). Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers In Agricultural Science, Social Science and Other Related Fields. Berlin: Springer.

Sanjeev, R., and Natrajan, N. S. (2019). Role of blended learning environment towards student performance in higher education: mediating effect of student engagement. Int. J. Learn. Change 11, 95–110. doi: 10.1504/IJLC.2019.101678

Shimizu, I., Nakazawa, H., Sato, Y., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., and Könings, K. D. (2019). Does blended problem-based learning make Asian medical students active learners?: a prospective comparative study. BMC Med. Educ. 19:147. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1575-1

Shu, H., and Gu, X. (2018). Determining the differences between online and face-to-face student–group interactions in a blended learning course. Int. Higher Educ. 39, 13–21. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.05.003

Simko, T., Pinar, I., Pearson, A., Huang, J., Mutch, G., Patwary, A. S., et al. (2019). Flipped learning–a case study of enhanced student success. Australasian J. Eng. Educ. 24, 35–47. doi: 10.1080/22054952.2019.1617650

Sitthiworachart, J., Joy, M., and Mason, J. (2021). Blended learning activities in an e-business course. Educ. Sci. 11, 1–16. doi: 10.3390/educsci11120763

Smolyaninova, O., Gruzdeva, E., and Smolyaninov, A. (2021). Online mediation in the socialization of children with disabilities: environmental conditions in the Arctic and the North of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. Educ. Self Dev. 16, 346–361. doi: 10.26907/esd.16.3.28

Subandowo, M., Asri Humaira, M., Rusmiati Aliyyah, R., Rachmadtullah, R., Samsudin, A., and Nurtanto, M. (2020). Use of blended learning with moodle: study effectiveness in elementary school teacher education students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 29, 3272–3277.

Suleri, J. I., and Suleri, A. J. (2018). Comparing virtual learning, classical classroom learning and blended learning. Eur. J. Sustainable Dev. Res. 3:em0072. doi: 10.20897/ejosdr/3970

Talan, T., and Gulsecen, S. (2019). The effect of a flipped classroom on students’ achievements, academic engagement and satisfaction levels. Turkish Online J. Distance Educ. 20:3. doi: 10.17718/tojde.640503

Taylor, M., Ghani, S., Atas, S., and Fairbrother, M. (2018). A pathway towards implementation of blended learning in a medium sized Canadian university. Int. J. Online Pedagogy Course Design 8, 60–76. doi: 10.4018/IJOPCD.2018010105

Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., and Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Comp. Educ. 107, 113–126. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.003

Vasyura, S., Kuzmina, O., and Maletova, M. (2020). Internet communications: time phenomenon and communicative activity. Educ. Self Dev. 15, 71–79. doi: 10.26907/esd15.4.03

Wang, N., Chen, J., Tai, M., and Zhang, J. (2021). Blended learning for Chinese university EFL learners: learning environment and learner perceptions. Comp. Assisted Lang. Learn. 34, 297–323. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1607881

Wang, Y., Han, X., and Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: using a complex adaptive systems framework. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18, 380–393.

Why choose Scopus - Scopus benefits — Elsevier solutions (2018). https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/why-choose-scopus (accessed March 3,2022).

Xu, D., Glick, D., Rodriguez, F., Cung, B., Li, Q., and Warschauer, M. (2020). Does blended instruction enhance English language learning in developing countries? evidence from Mexico. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 51, 211–227. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12797

Yang, Y. F., and Kuo, N. C. (2021). Blended learning to foster EFL college students’ global literacy. Comp. Assisted Lang. Learn. 1–22. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1900874

Yick, K. L., Yip, J., Au, S. C., Lai, Y. Y., and Yu, A. (2019). Effectiveness of blended learning in the first year of fashion education. Int. J. Fashion Design Technol. Educ. 12, 178–188. doi: 10.1080/17543266.2018.1546910

Yorganci, S. (2020). Implementing flipped learning approach based on ‘first principles of instruction’ in mathematics courses. J. Comp. Assisted Learn. 36, 763–779. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12448

Zeqiri, J., and Alserhan, B. A. (2021). University student satisfaction with blended learning: a cross-national study between North Macedonia and Jordan. Int. J. Technol. Enhanced Learn. 13:325. doi: 10.1504/ijtel.2021.10036683

Zhu, M., Berri, S., and Zhang, K. (2021). Effective instructional strategies and technology use in blended learning: a case study. Educ. Inform. Technol. 26, 6143–6161. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10544-w

Zimba, Z. F., Khosa, P., and Pillay, R. (2021). Using blended learning in South African social work education to facilitate student engagement. Soc. Work Educ. 40, 263–278. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2020.1746261

Keywords : blended Learning, flipped classroom, recommendations for future studies, replication, methodology, research content

Citation: Platonova RI, Orekhovskaya NA, Dautova SB, Martynenko EV, Kryukova NI and Demir S (2022) Blended Learning in Higher Education: Diversifying Models and Practical Recommendations for Researchers. Front. Educ. 7:957199. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.957199

Received: 30 May 2022; Accepted: 21 June 2022; Published: 05 July 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Platonova, Orekhovskaya, Dautova, Martynenko, Kryukova and Demir. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Servet Demir, [email protected]

† ORCID: Raisa I. Platonova, orcid.org/0000-0002-7402-4051 ; Natalia A. Orekhovskaya, orcid.org/0000-0001-8390-5275 ; Saule B. Dautova, orcid.org/0000-0002-5451-4950 ; Elena V. Martynenko, orcid.org/0000-0002-3089-9892 ; Nina I. Kryukova, orcid.org/0000-0002-0667-9945 ; Servet Demir, orcid.org/0000-0003-1360-2871

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

The Benefits Of Blended Learning

The benefits of blended learning include allowing students access to materials from anywhere at any time while enjoying face-to-face support.

What Are The Benefits Of Blended Learning?

contributed by April Giarla

The teaching landscape is rapidly changing, the technological rise of the 21 st- century and widespread integration of those technologies into our society, combined with access to the internet has integrally changed teaching in just a few years.

Our children and their following generations are already and will continue to grow up in a world that’s a stark reminder of how rapidly the human civilization has changed, a society and world where smartphones and tablets are widespread, affordable, and replacing most computers and laptops.

The rapidly changing landscapes should be a marker to show that teaching methods need to evolve to keep up with the times and incorporate integrated technologies into the learning modal, these technologies aren’t going to go away, they’ll continue to be integrated into our society and it’s time to embrace them for the advantages they bring.

What Is Blended Learning?

TeachThought provided a definition of blended learning in the past. Blended Learning is a mixture of learning methods that incorporate multiple teaching modals–most frequently eLearning and traditional face-to-face learning.

Blended learning is a natural development to the growing accessibility of eLearning, online resources, and the continued need for a human component in the learning experience. A blended learning approach ensures that the learner is engaged and driving his or her individual learning experience. This approach also helps cater to the individual needs of the learner, most students have unique learning styles and a blended approach is more likely to cater to those needs than a traditional classroom teaching experience.

Blended Learning Models

You can read more about the different kinds of blended learning models in more depth here. As a quick overview, know that due to its modular design, blended learning can come in numerous shapes and sizes and be personalized to fit the individual. These types of modals can include:

Online – Instruction occurs via an online platform, with periodic face-to-face meetings.

Rotation : Student rotates between self-paced online learning and face-to-face instruction. Schedules are fixed but flexible.

Flex : Most instruction is delivered online, with teachers providing as needed support in small-group settings.

Personalized blend : Teacher designs face-to-face and anywhere, anytime learning options that straddle the physical classroom and virtual spaces. Learning is the constant and time is the variable.

Online lab : Instructions takes place in a brick and mortar lab. Delivered by an online teacher and supervised onsite by paraprofessionals.

Self-blend : Students take online courses to supplement their tradition schools face to face course catalog.

Face-to-face : Teacher offers primarily face-to-face instruction, supplemented with technology in the classroom or computer lab.

Why Is Blended Learning Important?

Blended learning is important because it breaks down the traditional walls of teaching, ones that don’t work for all students and now with access to present-day technologies and resources we can tailor the learning experience for each student. Blended learning also offers flexible time frames that can be personalized to each person, offering them the ability to learn at their own pace.

Advantages Of Blended Learning For Teachers

Teaching is less expensive to deliver, more affordable, and saves time.

Blended learning offers flexibility in terms of availability. In other words, blended learning enables the student to access the materials from anywhere at any time while enjoying the benefits of face-to-face support and instruction.

Access to global resources and materials that meet the students’ level of  knowledge and interest.

Self-pacing for slow or quick learners reduces stress, increases  satisfaction, and information retention.

E-learning allows more effective interactions between the learners and their  instructors through the use of emails, discussion boards and chat room.

Students have the ability to track their progress.

Students can also learn through a variety of activities that apply to many different learning styles.

E-learning could improve the quality of teaching and learning as it supports  face-to-face teaching approaches.

Blended learning also improves other factors for the teacher including:

More engaged students

Better information and feedback on work

Team teaching

Extended time with students

More leadership roles

Focus on deeper learning

Motivate hard to reach kids

New options to teach at home

More earning power

Individualized professional development plans

Improved Teaching Conditions

Blended learning tears down the traditional bricks and mortar approach to teaching, which can improve conditions such as:

Reduced Isolation

More opportunities for collaboration

Meaningful professional development

Better student data

Improved Time efficiency

Role-differentiation

Advantages Of Blended Learning For Students

Increase student interest: when technology is integrated into school lessons, learners are more likely to be interested in, focused on, and excited about the subjects they are studying. Subjects that might be monotonous for some – like math and science, while also increasing information retention.

Keep students focused for longer: The use of computers to look up information & data is a tremendous lifesaver, combined with access to resources such as the internet to conduct research. This engagement and interaction with the resources keeps students focused for longer periods then they would be with books or paper resources, this engagement also helps develop learning through exploration and research.

Provides student autonomy: The use of eLearning materials increases a student’s ability to set appropriate learning goals and take charge of his or her own learning, which develops an ability that will be translatable across all subjects.

Instill a disposition of self-advocacy: Students become self-driven and responsible, tracking their individual achievements , which helps develop the ability to find the resources or get the help they need, self-advocating so they can reach their goals.

Promote student ownership: Blended learning instills a sense of ‘student ownership over learning’ which can be a powerful force propelling the learning, It’s this feeling of responsibility that helps the feeling of ownership.

Allow instant diagnostic information and student feedback: The ability to rapidly analyze, review and give feedback to student work, gives the teacher the ability to tailor his teaching methods and feedback for each student while improving time efficiency.

Enables students to learn at their own pace: Due to the flexibility of blended learning and the ability to access internet resources allows students to learn at their own pace, meaning a teacher can help speed up the learning process or give more advanced resources if necessary.

Prepares students for the future: Blended learning offers a multitude of real-world skills, that directly translate into life skills, from:

Research skills

Self-learning

Self-engagement

Helps to develop a ‘self-driving force’  

Better decision making

Offers a larger sense of responsibility

Computer literacy

All students no matter their age learn differently and teaching methods should reflect this, by designing teaching programs in a way that reaches visual, auditory, and kinetic learners alike.

With the heavy integration of technologies, we’ll be able to improve teaching, information retention, engagement, responsibility, and enjoyment.  Students never outgrow their learning styles, meaning blended learning is more important than ever, no matter what the industry is, from schools to corporations, from all walks of life.  

StratX Exl is a management development firm that delivers top 500 global companies engaging customized learning solutions. Visit StratX Exl at http://stratxcorporate.com/

TeachThought is an organization dedicated to innovation in education through the growth of outstanding teachers.

The School of Education Blog

University of Bristol

Reflections on Blended Learning

  blog by mark neild, edd student, soe, university of bristol.

This article is a personal reflection on the best and worst of blended learning from the perspective of a senior lecturer in innovation and entrepreneurship teaching a unit with 35 and another with 160 students, who is also a student at the School of Education.

The positives of online learning

In some ways the forced move to “blended learning” has enabled us to accelerate a move towards the “flipped classroom” in which students consume prepared material individually and come together for “meaning making” through shared dialogue. One advantage of individual consumption is that students can learn at their own pace, stop and rewind in a way impossible with a real time “lecture”. This has benefits for interactivity, particularly for students whose first language is not English.  Such “asynchronous” interaction allows those who (for whatever reason) process new information more slowly to still engage in online discussions rather than missing out because by the time they are ready to contribute, the discussion has moved on. We have also been able to invite visiting experts for 20-minute guest Q&A sessions without the need for hours of travelling and recorded some great guest interviews.  The weekly outline for our unit of 160 students looked like this.

Greater Engagement

Real time engagement stats from Blackboard also enable us to see who is / is not participating and check in with those not to ensure they are ok.  It was really rewarding to reach out to a student and tell him how his team was missing his input and then witness (like a fly on the wall) his ensuing interactions with the team.  We have had to make time to teach teamworking and online collaboration skills in a way that we would not never have done previously.  It was quite exciting in May to be working with multicultural teams with members in India, China and South America collaborating on a common project – but it did make scheduling tricky given the spread of timezones.

Easier Research

Students also report that conducting research is easier.  People are more available online even if the range of research methods is necessarily reduced by this medium.  Real time transcription of recorded interviews or focus groups’ impressions of digital prototypes makes it much easier to faithfully capture what was really said.  So much better than relying on fragments of handwritten notes with all of the sub-conscious bias this entails.  The downside of course is the ethics considerations for information governance

But it is not all good.

I find it hard to speak to a screen full of anonymity, which reduces my fluidity when recording material. I hate to admit quite how much procrastination this induces when preparing recorded videos.  Students, like other workers are finding it harder to get on with work when the distinction between study time and social time becomes blurred.  The lack of the boundary created by travelling to and from campus and because social life is so disastrously curtailed leads to longer hours that are less productive. It is no surprise that this is impacting mental wellbeing. What I miss most is the ability to wander around and see how students in their teams are progressing with their coursework.  Attempting this in mask and visor with students spread around curious bone-shaped tables designed for social distancing just does not work.  Add in the fact that any “on-campus” learning also needs to cater for those in quarantine or self-isolating and we end up with a hybrid that feels like the worst of both worlds.  Little wonder then that over time students voted with their feet with online “on-campus alternative” sessions attracting 10 times as many participants.  The few that did come in said it was mostly just an excuse to leave the building.

Embracing new technologies?

We have embraced a lot of new technologies to provide the best possible learning experience, but it has been a steep learning curve and a straw poll among colleagues suggests that delivering the same teaching takes 50%-75% more effort than the old ways.  It is frustrating for us and confusing for students that no single platform delivers everything we need for teaching. Students report problems with Internet connectivity due to infrastructure simply not built for the higher “contention” when everyone’s online all the time.  I was grateful for digital skills courses put on over the summer.  I did not learn much about digital delivery – I have been teaching entrepreneurship over Skype to Africa since 2013 – but it certainly showed me how to use the tools we had to best effect.

Looking back over 9 months or so of blended learning, on balance, I think that we are delivering a better learning experience.   But this is against a backdrop of the overall student experience being very much diminished – particularly for extracurricular activity. These added stresses have required great paroral efforts.  Let us hope that the next academic year starts to bring some semblance of normality and that we can keep the best while happily relinquishing the worst aspects of this year.

Follow Mark Neild: Twitter:  @mpneild LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/markneild

Subscribe By Email

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.

Your Email Leave this field blank

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blended Learning Essays

Remote learning adaptations, determining training needs at summit credit union: summative and formative evaluation, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Dental Educational Curriculum Dilemma between Rigidity and Future Updates

10 Pages Posted: 28 Aug 2024

Shimaa Kotb

Sphinx University

Abdelrahman Ayman

Sphinx university - department of oral medicine, periodontolgy, oral diagnosis and dental radiology, amira mustafa.

Date Written: August 27, 2024

Education is the tool that ignites and inspires creativity and innovative thinking. Education plays a crucial role in the growth and development of nations as a social process. Teacher is the cornerstone in this organization. Crisis of COVID19 pandemic change the vision of education and the resultant learning loss which being scary on the next generation. Telemedicine is an advanced technology that was used during crises, which led to the creation of a virtual place for the doctor to assist in consultation in areas that have not been reached, moreover, it provides a creative way to overcome the problem of school closures and stopping the education system. The pandemic changing our vision towards shifting dental education from face-to-face to blended learning formats which will be a viable option for dental education in the future. Moreover it shift the vision regarding the importance of using the latest technological innovations, including AI, which has the power to revolutionize education in Oral and Dental Medicine and other fields. This article aims to emphasize the importance of an updated the curriculum of education system in preparing new dentists for the future challenges.

Keywords: Covid19, Dental education, teledentistry, critical thinking, Challenge-based learning, nonclinical communication skills, Artificial intelligence, virtual reality

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Shimaa Kotb (Contact Author)

Sphinx university ( email ), do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, oral medicine, oncology & pathology ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Preventive Dentistry, Oral Health & Oral Biosciences eJournal

Dental education ejournal, global dental public health ejournal.

• Reading Instruction

What Reading Programs Are Aligned With Lexia LETRS?

Reading instruction has undergone major changes in the last decade, with a growing focus on what research shows works best. This shift to science of reading-based literacy instruction catapulted the popularity of Lexia® LETRS® (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling). 

LETRS is a comprehensive professional development product suite designed to provide educators with a deep understanding of the science of reading. This evidence-based training equips teachers with the knowledge and skills to deliver effective literacy instruction.

But even with this depth of knowledge, educators can face hurdles in consistently implementing those evidence-based practices. While searching for solutions, school leaders will likely encounter reading programs claiming to be “LETRS-aligned.” Here’s how to assess those claims. 

LETRS: Empowering Teachers, Not Programs

This approach ensures LETRS remains a versatile professional development program, empowering teachers with knowledge that can be applied across various instructional contexts. Rather than endorsing or aligning with particular materials, LETRS equips educators with the expertise to critically evaluate and effectively implement any reading program through the lens of evidence-based practices. This program-agnostic nature of LETRS underscores its commitment to teacher empowerment and flexibility in addressing diverse student needs across different educational settings.

But what exactly does this mean for classroom instruction, and how does it relate to the materials we use to teach reading? 

Supporting LETRS-Trained Teachers

Despite the empowering nature of LETRS training, many teachers may benefit from program support to implement their training effectively. This brings us back to the claim of being “LETRS-aligned.”

While no program is 100% aligned to LETRS (because one is professional development and the other curriculum), a program can be aligned to the research-based literacy principles and knowledge base included in LETRS. 

As an informed administrator, it's essential to critically evaluate these claims and understand what accurate alignment with LETRS knowledge and principles  might look like.

Diving into the LETRS Knowledge Base

LETRS is grounded in decades of scientific research about how children learn to read. This comprehensive professional learning course of study covers various topics essential for effective literacy instruction. Let's explore some key components of the LETRS knowledge base:

1. The Simple View of Reading

LETRS emphasizes the  Simple View of Reading,  which shows that reading comprehension (RC) is the product of two essential skills: Word recognition (WR) and language comprehension (LC)  (i.e., WR x LC = RC). This model underscores the importance of developing word recognition and oral language abilities.

2. Scarborough's Reading Rope

Another crucial model in LETRS is Scarborough's Reading Rope, which illustrates the complexity of reading development. It depicts reading as a multifaceted skill composed of various strands that must be woven together for skilled reading. These strands include phonological awareness, decoding, sight recognition, background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge.

3. The Reading Brain

4. Phonological and Phonemic Awareness

LETRS provides in-depth knowledge about the critical role of  phonological and phoneme awareness  in early reading development. It covers the continuum of phonological skills and effective instructional techniques to develop these abilities.

5. Phonics and Word Recognition

The program offers comprehensive instruction about teaching phonics systematically and explicitly. It covers phoneme-grapheme mapping, syllable types, and morphology to support accurate and fluent word recognition.

LETRS explores the components of  fluency  (accuracy, speed, and expression) and provides strategies for developing fluent reading skills in students.

7. Vocabulary and Oral Language

LETRS emphasizes the importance of vocabulary and oral language development. It provides research-based strategies for building students' word knowledge and language comprehension abilities.

8. Reading Comprehension

LETRS covers various aspects of reading comprehension, including the role of background knowledge, comprehension strategies, and text structures in understanding written material.

The program also addresses the reciprocal relationship between reading and writing, providing guidance about effective writing instruction that reinforces reading skills.

What Does It Mean to Be Aligned With the LETRS Knowledge Base?

Although no program can claim official LETRS alignment, many instructional resources aim to support the implementation of science of reading practices taught in LETRS. Programs that align with the LETRS knowledge base typically:

• Address all essential components of reading instruction: Phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
• Follow research-backed progressions in their Scope and Sequence, reflecting the developmental nature of reading skills.
• Emphasize explicit, systematic instruction in foundational skills.
• Incorporate the skills identified in the Simple View of Reading , recognizing the importance of both word recognition and language comprehension.
• Acknowledge Scarborough's Reading Rope and provide instruction that addresses its intertwined skills.
• Provide explicit instruction and practice in phoneme-grapheme mapping.
• Offer strategies for building background knowledge and vocabulary to support comprehension.
• Include writing components that reinforce reading skills.
• Provide assessment tools that align with the science of reading principles.

What Does It Mean to Be Aligned With LETRS Principles?

• Keep the teacher at the center of instruction , recognizing that no technology can replace a skilled educator.
• Provide tools for early identification of reading difficulties and targeted intervention.
• Offer real-time progress data to inform instructional decisions.
• Include resources for explicit, multisensory lessons targeting specific skills.
• Emphasize the importance of systematic and cumulative instruction.
• Provide opportunities for distributed practice to support long-term retention.
• Offer professional development to help teachers implement evidence-based practices effectively.
• Support prevention and early intervention based on individual student needs.

Finding Programs That Align With the LETRS Knowledge Base & Principles

When evaluating programs for alignment with LETRS principles, consider these steps:

1. Examine the Program's Theoretical Framework

Look for programs that explicitly state their alignment with the science of reading. They should reference critical models and concepts taught in LETRS, such as the Simple View of Reading and Scarborough's Reading Rope.

2. Analyze the Scope and Sequence

Check if the program follows a logical, systematic progression of skills that aligns with literacy development as described in LETRS. For example, does it start with phonological awareness before moving to phonics?

3. Evaluate the Instructional Approach

Look for programs emphasizing explicit, systematic instruction across all elements of literacy learning, from foundational skills to reading comprehension. They should provide clear teacher scripts and modeling of skills.

4. Assess Comprehension Instruction

When assessing comprehension instruction, look for a program that teaches explicit vocabulary strategies, text structure awareness, inference-making, and metacognitive skills. It should also integrate background knowledge, active reading strategies, and practice with various comprehension levels across different text types.

5. Check for Assessment and Progress Monitoring

Aligned programs should offer assessment tools that measure all components of reading and provide data to inform instruction periodically across the school year.

6. Look for Prevention and Early Intervention Tools

Determine if a program supports prevention and early intervention in reading difficulties by providing comprehensive teacher training in the science of reading and effective instructional strategies. It should emphasize systematic, explicit instruction in key areas like phonological awareness and phonics while equipping educators with tools for the early identification of at-risk students.

7. Examine Professional Development Offerings

Consider whether the program provides ongoing professional development that aligns with LETRS principles and helps teachers implement evidence-based practices.

Is Lexia Core5 Reading Aligned With the LETRS Knowledge Base & Principles?

Here's how Core5 supports LETRS-trained educators:

• Structured Literacy Approach : Core5 addresses all components of reading instruction systematically and explicitly , aligning with the comprehensive approach advocated in LETRS.
• Personalized Learning : The program offers adaptive instruction tailored to each student’s needs, supporting the instruction principles emphasized in LETRS.
• Teacher-Led Instruction : Core5’s blended learning model keeps teachers at the center , providing resources for targeted lessons and interventions, echoing LETRS’ emphasis on teacher expertise.
• Progress Monitoring : Continuous assessment data helps teachers make informed instructional decisions, aligning with LETRS’ focus on data-driven instruction.
• Multisensory Resources : The program includes games and hands-on activities to reinforce skills taught in the digital component, supporting LETRS’ emphasis on multisensory instruction .
• Research-Based Efficacy : Evidence shows that students who used Core5 and had LETRS-trained teachers demonstrated higher reading scores than those who used Core5 alone, indicating a synergistic effect between the program and LETRS training.

Reflecting on the implementation of Lexia's literacy programs, a Craven County School District executive director shared his school’s positive experience, emphasizing the complementary nature of LETRS and Core5:

“All the work we’ve done with LETRS also ties in with Core5. We had Core5 first, and when we added LETRS, it was like light bulbs went off. Teachers see all the connections. Lexia has done a really good job, specifically Core5, with the correlation of all the different skills and how that ties into LETRS.” –Jason Griffin, Executive Director of Elementary and Federal Programs, Craven County School District

Finding the Right Program to Support LETRS-Trained Teachers

Understanding the knowledge base and principles of LETRS can help you evaluate programs more effectively, regardless of alignment claims. By prioritizing evidence-based literacy solutions that support implementing LETRS principles, you can ensure your investment in professional development translates into improved reading outcomes for all students. 

No program replaces a skilled, knowledgeable teacher, but the right resources can significantly enhance the effectiveness of LETRS-trained teachers in the classroom.

You Might Also Like

White Papers

Structured Literacy: Applying the Science of Reading in the Classroom

In this primer about Structured Literacy, discover how teachers can apply the science of reading in their classrooms for immediate gains. Included is information to differentiate between reading programs truly based on science from those that are not.

It’s More Than Phonics: Dispelling the Biggest Myth About the Science of Reading

We now have five decades of gold-standard research into how students learn to read. This body of evidence is called the science of reading and confirms that students do in fact need explicit phonics instruction to read proficiently—along with four other areas of reading.

Lexia® Core5® Reading: Your Science of Reading Solution

Aligned with the strands of Scarborough’s Reading Rope, Lexia® Core5® Reading is a research-proven program that accelerates the development of literacy skills for students of all abilities. Word-recognition and language-comprehension skills are woven within and across Core5’s scope and sequence.

A Cambium Learning® Group Brand

• Universities Hit Back Against Proposed Online Attendance Policy

Proposed federal regulations have institutions and higher ed groups worried about time and financial burdens.

By  Lauren Coffey

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

The Department of Education’s proposal that universities take attendance in online courses is receiving pushback.

Drazen Zigic/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Hundreds of professors, colleges and higher ed organizations have expressed sharp criticism of the Department of Education’s proposed regulations for online courses, saying they stem from an antiquated mindset about new modalities—and place a time burden on professors and a financial burden on institutions.

Last month, the Department of Education asked for input on the proposed regulations; the comment period closed this past Friday. If the proposal is finalized before Nov. 1, it will be implemented by July 2026 at the earliest.

The attendance policy is one small portion of the new rule, which is part of a larger package of federal policies designed to protect students and hold institutions accountable for the financial aid dollars they receive.

Most Popular

• Stanford creative writing program laying off lecturers
• UC Berkeley launches AI-focused law degree
• Parents value clear communication about college cost: survey

The new regulations also propose to create a virtual location for colleges to better track distance education students, roll back a 2020 ruling that allowed asynchronous learning activities to count toward the “clock hours” required in distance education courses and expand eligibility to the TRIO program, which offers college-prep programs.

While those proposals brought their own set of critics, the majority of comments focused on the proposed attendance policy. Every 14 days, students would be expected to turn in an assignment or interact with a professor or fellow students during their online lectures and course discussions, although the department has yet to define exactly how colleges are expected to report on the students’ attendance.

The department says the policy would provide a more accurate accounting of when students drop out of courses. The proposal is aimed at preventing institutions from collecting federal Title IV financial aid funds for students who’ve dropped out.

Pushback Across the Board

Large university systems including those in California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin all said that while they appreciate the department’s efforts to curb bad actors, they worry about the attendance policy.

“We understand and support the department’s interest in taking attendance and withdrawing students in a timely manner to ensure that Title IV funds are not wasted or abused,” said Nicholas Jones, executive vice president at the University of Illinois system. “However, we disagree with the blanket approach that punishes students and legitimate institutions. It would unnecessarily shift resources to address these regulatory demands instead of focusing on what matters: students and their success.”

The University of California system suggested more “clear and consistent guidance” on how institutions would have to adhere to the rule. Yvette Gullatt, vice president for UC’s graduate and undergraduate affairs, added that the proposed change could have unintended consequences—namely that fewer online or hybrid courses will be offered, which could particularly hurt lower-income students who are looking for more flexible, affordable course options.

“Future education program innovation from our faculty in pursuing economic justice will be halted due to these proposed provisions,” Gullatt said on behalf of the UC system.

Boise State University said the regulations “reveal a bias against online education.”

“We recognize that the department’s proposed regulations may be in response to instances where other institutions employed inadequate practices that failed to protect students as consumers,” the university wrote. “But such failures exist with face-to-face programs—especially with for-profit providers. Why is the department focusing on … online programming?”

Editors’ Picks

• ‘Red Wedding’: Storied Stanford Creative Writing Program Laying Off Lecturers
• Re: Your Recent Email to Your Professor

Community colleges in more than a dozen states cited similar concerns, pointing toward the large number of their students who take online or hybrid courses.

The proposed rule “asserts without providing explicit evidence that the documentation of withdrawals is a greater problem in distance education courses than for in-person classes,” said the American Association of Community Colleges. “On this shaky policy foundation, ED is proposing to impose a sweeping compliance burden on institutions that outweighs the possible benefit.”

Several organizations said that they appreciate the efforts the Education Department is attempting to take—but they think this guidance is misplaced.

“We believe finding the right balance” between flexibility and innovation “is critically important,” wrote the Association for Career and Technology Education. “Unfortunately, ED’s new proposed definition for distance education would move in the opposite direction.”

Other groups, including the left-leaning think tank New America, hit back at assertions the attendance policy would put an undue burden on the institutions, stating institutions should “already be monitoring this to ensure that distance education students are receiving the regular and substantive interaction from their instructors, as required under existing regulations.” ( Note: A previous version of this story misquoted New America, and has been corrected to indicate the group was addressing the distance education enrollment reporting requirement in the regulations. )

U.S. Representative Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, also applauded the proposed regulations, saying the attendance policy’s data collection could allow a better comparison of the efficacy of online versus in-person programming.

But Virginia Foxx, Republican chair of the House education committee, joined five other GOP members of Congress in blasting a different segment of the regulations: TRIO expansion. In the proposed regulations, TRIO would include students seeking to enroll in a high school in the U.S. or a U.S. territory; some Republicans in Congress are concerned that means it would extend benefits to undocumented immigrants.

“TRIO programs have historically benefitted low-income Americans, first generation college students, and students with disabilities to help close the educational gap and ensure they have the skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education,” the letter states. “The proposed expansion is a blatant attempt to provide additional taxpayer-funded services to those not seeking citizenship in the name of reducing ‘burden.’ The department’s proposed expansion will stretch funding thin and risk those currently eligible for TRIO.”

Academic Associations Face Critique for Political Statements

A new report from AEI adds to a growing wave of conservative criticism suggesting that academe should avoid taking a

Share This Article

More from government.

Columbia University Subpoenaed for Records in Antisemitism Investigation

This is the second time this year—and in history—that the House education committee has sought to force a college or

‘A New Low’: Civil Rights Chief Calls Out Discrimination on Campuses

Catherine Lhamon said Thursday that the handling of discrimination on college campuses has hit “a new low” and that p

How Biden’s Title IX Reform Became a Legal Morass

Conservatives have partly stymied the administration’s efforts to overhaul Title IX, getting the new regulations

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Sign Up, It’s FREE

Advertisement

With Ella Emhoff, the D.N.C. Keeps Its Family Theme Going

The stepdaughter of Kamala Harris took the stage alongside Ms. Harris’s niece and goddaughter.

• Share full article

Kamala Harris’s Stepdaughter Ella Emhoff Speaks at the D.N.C.

Continuing the d.n.c.’s family theme, vice president kamala harris’s stepdaughter ella emhoff took the stage on thursday night..

Kamala came into my life when I was 14, famously, a very easy time for a teenager. Like a lot of young people, I didn’t always understand what I was feeling. But no matter what, Kamala was there for me. She was patient, caring, and always took me seriously. She’s never stopped listening to me, and she’s not going to stop listening to all of us.

By Madison Malone Kircher

• Aug. 22, 2024

Ella Emhoff, the stepdaughter of Vice President Kamala Harris, spoke onstage at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday evening, alongside Meena Harris, Ms. Harris’s niece, and Helena Hudlin, Ms. Harris’s goddaughter whose mother introduced Ms. Emhoff’s father, Doug Emhoff, to Ms. Harris over a decade ago.

“Kamala came into my life when I was 14, famously a very easy time for a teenager,” Ms. Emhoff said. “Like a lot of young people, I didn’t always understand what I was feeling, but no matter what, Kamala was there for me. She was patient caring and always took me seriously. She’s never stopped listening to me and she’s not going to stop listening to all of us.”

She also described her stepmother’s focus on fighting for health, environmental and social justice. “She isn’t alone, we’re all in this fight together,” Ms. Emhoff, 25, said.

Ms. Emhoff and her family have been fixtures at this week’s events. Her brother, Cole Emhoff, introduced their father before his speech on Tuesday evening. Their mother, the film producer Kerstin Emhoff, has also been in attendance. (The couple divorced in 2009; Ms. Harris and Mr. Emhoff married in 2014.) In his speech, Mr. Emhoff proudly described his “ big, beautiful blended family .” Before Ms. Emhoff took the stage, Ms. Harris’s grandnieces, with some help from the actor Kerry Washington, taught the crowd how to properly pronounce Ms. Harris’s name. “Comma-la!”

Ms. Emhoff had discussed her father’s speech on Instagram earlier in the week, writing “if you saw me cry on tv NO YOU DIDNT.” She continued, “Just kidding I was crying like a little baby.”

In the post, she included a photo of herself kissing her purse for the evening: a black leather bag with a fake chocolate chip cookie affixed to the front from the designer Puppets and Puppets that she paired with a plaid suit from Thom Browne.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• International Gas Turbine Institute
• Previous Paper

A Comparative Analysis of Various Machine Learning Approaches for Fault Diagnostics of Hydrogen Fueled Gas Turbines

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions
• Search Site

Hashmi, MB, Fentaye, AD, Mansouri, M, & Kyprianidis, KG. "A Comparative Analysis of Various Machine Learning Approaches for Fault Diagnostics of Hydrogen Fueled Gas Turbines." Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2024: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition . Volume 4: Controls, Diagnostics, and Instrumentation . London, United Kingdom. June 24–28, 2024. V004T05A050. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2024-129279

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Global energy transition efforts towards decarbonization requires significant advances within the energy sector. In this regard, hydrogen is envisioned as a long-term alternative fuel for gas turbines. Accordingly, the gas turbine industry has expedited their efforts in developing 100% hydrogen compliant burners and associated auxiliary components for retrofitting the existing gas turbines. The utilization of hydrogen in gas turbines has some underlying challenges such as corrosion mainly originating from increased steam content in the hot gas path. In addition to corrosion, the gas turbine compressor is vulnerable to fouling which is the most commonly occurring fault in gas turbine operating over certain time window. Both faults are susceptible to performance and health degradation. To avoid expensive asset loss caused by unexpected downtimes and shutdowns, timely maintenance decision making is required. Therefore, simple, accurate and computationally efficient fault detection and diagnostics models become crucial for timely assessment of health status of the gas turbines.

The present study encompassed development of a physics-based performance model of a 100-kWe micro gas turbine running on 100% hydrogen fuel. The model is validated with experimental data acquired from test campaigns at the University of Stavanger. Data synthesized from experimentally validated performance model are utilized further for training machine learning algorithms. To identify an accurate algorithm, various algorithms such as support vector machine, decision tree, random forest algorithm, k-nearest neighbors, and artificial neural network were tested. The findings from fault diagnostics process (classification) revealed that ANN outperformed its counterpart algorithm by giving accuracy of 94.55%. Similarly, ANN also showed higher accuracy in performance degradation estimation process (regression) by showing the MSE of training loss as low as ∼0.14. The comparative analysis of all the chosen algorithms in the present study revealed ANN as the most accurate algorithm for fault diagnostics of hydrogen fueled gas turbines. However, there is need to further implement the ensemble machine learning models or deep learning model to explore and expedite the real time fault diagnostic accuracy to avoid false alarms and missed detections in context of hydrogen fuel.

Purchase this Content

Product added to cart., email alerts, related proceedings papers, related articles, related chapters, affiliations.

• ASME Conference Publications and Proceedings
• Conference Proceedings Author Guidelines
• Indexing and Discovery

ASME Journals

• About ASME Journals
• Information for Authors
• Submit a Paper
• Call for Papers
• Title History

ASME Conference Proceedings

• About ASME Conference Publications and Proceedings

ASME eBooks

• About ASME eBooks
• ASME Press Advisory & Oversight Committee
• Book Proposal Guidelines
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Publication Permissions & Reprints
• ASME Membership

Opportunities

• Faculty Positions
• ASME Instagram

• Accessibility
• Privacy Statement
• Terms of Use
• Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account