Blended Learning Series: Topic Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
Blended Learning
Part 1:
Definition and Significance
Overview
Technology-enhanced courses occur across a continuum ranging from low to high integration of technology. Traditional course structure is the face-to-face model whereby all activities and instruction occur in person with minimal technology use, aside from slide decks and utilizing the learning management system (e.g., Canvas) In the blended learning model, all instruction occurs face-to-face, but technology is used to facilitate activities, assess students, or deliver content without a reduction in face-to-face learning time. Effective blended models generally include technological support of learning objectives, alignment of face-to-face and online components, and integrated active learning (Linder, 2017; Picciano, 2009; Glazer, 2012). Below are some additional modes of instruction that are prevalent in higher education.
The flipped learning model – which may be applied to traditional, hybrid, and online courses – intentionally inverts the traditional use of class time, so that activities that usually take place during class now take place outside of class. Flipped learning exposes students to course content prior to class. Technology can support this by delivering course content via recorded lectures or videos. In this way, class time is reserved for students to engage in higher-order thinking and application of the learned concepts in a whole group, with the guidance of the instructor to facilitate deep and meaningful learning. Though generally less reliant on technology than the other models, the flipped classrooms often include use of such tools as personal response systems or clickers (Saichaie, 2020).
A hybrid course is one where a portion of face-to-face instruction and learning activities is replaced by web-based online learning activities. Typically, between 25-75% of course activities occur online. For example, students might come to class for two hours per week instead of four – the other two hours are “made up” with online activities, which can be synchronous or asynchronous. “Synchronous” online activities are when the students and instructor are all engaging with each other and the content in real time and include things like webinars and online chat rooms. “Asynchronous” online activities are when the students and instructor are engaging with each other at different times, typically over a longer period. Online discussion forums are a good example of an asynchronous online activity.
An online course is one in which all instruction and learning activities occur online; those activities can be either synchronous (students and instructor engaging with each other at same time) or asynchronous (students and instructor engaging with each other at different times, typically over a longer period), and often is the combination of the two. The courses do not meet in a face-to-face classroom. The instructor interacts with students through online presentations, online office hours and chats, and online discussions.
Both hybrid and online models differ significantly from traditional courses along three dimensions:
- Time and flexibility – hybrid and online courses combine elements of synchronous and asynchronous learning that are not as limited by the scheduling constraints of a classroom.
- Instructor and student roles – hybrid and online courses more often see instructors as coaches, mentors, and designers while students are more active and have an increased responsibility for learning.
- Content delivery and student interactions – hybrid and online courses increase opportunities for variation in delivery and ways in which students engage with others.
Significance
Though still an emergent field of study, there is evidence of the effectiveness of blended and online modalities in terms of student learning and instructor and student satisfaction. Some argue for its disruptive innovativeness (Linder, 2017; Christensen, 2011) or its transformative potential (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). The research generally suggests that learning outcomes are as good, if not better, in blended, flipped, hybrid, or online (BFHO) models when compared to traditional courses (Baepler et al., 2014; Bowen et al., 2014; Means et al, 2009). Other studies of hybrid learning highlight its varied effectiveness across different levels and types of courses (Ryan & Reid, 2016; Adams et al., 2015; Marshall & DeCapua, 2013; Owston, et al., 2013). It’s important to remember that students’ prior experiences with and attitudes toward hybrid learning, as well as their identities and backgrounds, impact their success in hybrid courses (Markovich, 2016 and Sanpanich, 2021).
Research also suggests that instructors are satisfied with the level of flexibility blended learning affords with regard to the use of time and classroom space, increased potential for interaction with students, and opportunities to learn more about new technology tools. Students report satisfaction with blended learning in varied contexts – from U.S. undergraduates to international settings to graduate and professional students – and often report that flipped models feel more inclusive with the increased levels of peer and instructor support (Saichaie,2020).
In sum, though challenges with hybrid and online learning (e.g., rethinking course design, adopting a new approach to teaching, managing dual learning environments, preparing students) exist, the advantages have potential to outweigh them. New teaching roles and pedagogical opportunities, combined with increased student engagement and learning, underlie these innovative models.
- Acknowledgement
- This series was updated with contributions from Katie Healey (Educational Specialist, UC Davis Center for Educational Effectiveness).
- Citation
- Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE). (2024). Blended learning series: Just-in-Time Teaching Resources. https://cee.ucdavis.edu/JITT
- References
- Adams, A. E., Randall, S., & Traustadóttir, T. (2015). A tale of two sections: An experiment to compare the effectiveness of a hybrid versus a traditional lecture format in introductory microbiology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar6.
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–236.
Bowen, W., Chingos, M., Lack, K., & Nygren, T. (2014). Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from a six-campus randomized trial. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), 94–111.
Christensen, C. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. Jossey-Bass.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
Glazer, F. (Ed.). (2012). Blended learning: Across the disciplines, across the academy. Stylus.
Kaur, I., & Harttrup, M. (2022). Engaging the online learner: Strategies for meaningful and effective learning experiences. https://openlibrary.ecampusontario.ca/item-details/#/9492d54d-5e0b-44dd-a669-5d537c4b150f
Linder, K. (2017). The blended course design workbook: A practical guide. Stylus Publishing.
Markovich, L. (2016). Examining students’ attitudes toward blended learning in adult literacy and basic skills programs (Master’s thesis). https://ir.library.dcuoit.ca/bitstream/10155/647/1/Markovich_Louise.pdf
Marshall, H., & DeCapua, A. (2013). Making the transition: Culturally responsive teaching for struggling language learners. University of Michigan Press.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education.
Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38–46.
Picciano, A. (2009). Blended with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 7–18.
Ryan, M., & Reid, S. (2015). Impact of the flipped classroom on student performance and retention. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(1), 13–23.
Saichaie, K. (2020). Blended, flipped, and hybrid learning: Definitions, developments, and directions. In T. Trolian & K. C. Culver (Eds.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning. Jossey-Bass.
Sanpanich, N. (2021). Investigating factors affecting students’ attitudes toward hybrid learning. rEFLections, 28(2), 208–227.