Group Paper

Running Head: Blended Learning in Post-Secondary Education and Professional Development

1

Blended Learning In Post-Secondary Education And Professional Development

Lindsay Bennett Dina Meunier Albert Norman

Memorial University of Newfoundland

Blended Learning in Post-Secondary Education and Professional Development

2

Introduction Technology has had a significant influence on the delivery of instruction and the methods of learning in higher education. With the evolution of computers, mobile devices, and other communication technologies, there is an abundance of educational opportunities available to instructors and students that simply did not exist a decade ago (Kyei-Blankson, Godwyll, NurAwaleh, & Keengwe, 2011). A variety of educational delivery methods have also evolved. In conjunction with traditional face-to-face offerings, courses are now delivered fully online, augmented by the web, and in blended formats. Research suggests that when implemented appropriately, courses that are delivered using these methods can produce better results than traditional methods and the literature suggests that blended learning has the greatest potential to enrich learning of them all (Allen, Seaman, & Garret, 2003; Hill, 2006). Blended learning alternatives are also constantly emerging and considered important tools for higher education that can provide richer learning experiences (Eduviews, 2009). In a 2007 study, Allen, Seaman, and Garrett projected that 40 percent of all college courses would be offered in a blended format by 2013. This paper will provide an overview of what blended learning is and examine how blended learning methods have evolved, the technology associated with the delivery of blended formats, recent trends, and the challenges to adoption and delivery.

Defining Blended Learning Blended learning is an interesting term in education. It is defined differently by different sources. Some sources routinely interchange the term, hybrid, in reference to education, learning, training, course or program with blended (Collins and OBrien, 2003 and Allen et. al., 2007). Oliver and Trigwell (2005) believe that the term is in fact inconsistently applied (p. 21)


3

and even redundant (p. 24). In reviewing the literature, the most consistent application of blended learning is found when referring to the medium of delivering education or training. More precisely, it is in the mixing of those mediums, primarily the combination of traditional, face-to-face classroom instruction with web-based instruction. Allen et. al. (2007) actually quantify this mix: a blended learning course is one which delivers between 30 and 79% of course content in an online environment. Blended learning, however, is also more broadly defined. In an academic environment, Sharma (2010) agrees that the blend refers to a combining or mixing but not only of online and face to face delivery. His view of blended learning encompasses the combination of different technologies or a combination of different teaching methods or pedagogies. This certainly widens the scope of what is meant by blended learning. In the field of human resources training and development, a similar blending of delivery medium, technology and methodologies are cited, in fact, workplace learning appears to more readily embrace the concept of informal training as part of the blend. Examples of blended learning from the American Society for Training and Development include:

blending online instruction with access to a coach or faculty member, blending simulations with structured courses, blending on-the-job training with brown bag informal sessions or blending managerial coaching with elearning activities (Rossett, 2002).

While definitions may be broad or inconsistent, the purpose for blending and the connections between methods and learning outcomes is an important similarity in the literature. For example, Hoffman and Miner (2008) state that blended learning must employ the best delivery methodologies available for a specific [learning] objective and that any mix... [must be explicitly] connected back to learning outcomes (p. 29). Sharma (2010) agrees, [blended


4

learning practitioners] must be concerned with the search for best practice...the optimum mix of course delivery in order to provide the most effective ...learning experience. (p. 457-458). In considering the variations on what blended learning is or what it can be, it seems wise to conclude that the concept of blended learning is really nothing new, that it surrounds us now and it always has (Bonk et.al., 2004, p. 2). Blending learning will continue to mature and as it does, new concepts of blended learning will emerge. The ASTD (para. 1) envisions blended learning as an endless and customized experience. Blended learning will provide ongoing digital learning [opportunities] and performance support for the learning and this learning will be customized to learners unique needs, wants and preferences (Rossett, 2002, para 4). Blended or hybrid learning, which may be referred to as yet something else one day, will continue to evolve as new technology is introduced and as research continues to uncover more effective teaching and learning practices.

The Evolution of Blended Learning There are many examples of blended learning in the literature, many of which relate to the re-design of a traditional, face-to-face course into a blended one. While delivery and medium may initially appear to be the main focus, part of the process of moving to a blended model forces the course author, instructor and/or instructional designer to consider the learning theory behind their method(s) of delivery and the impact on student engagement and achievement. Dalsgaard and Gosk (2007) transformed a portion of their traditional, lecture-based graduate university course in web communications into a problem-based, blended learning


5

course using social constructivist learning theory. Two 3-hour lectures on human computer interaction from the course were re-developed into:

a 1-hour face-to-face lecture providing an overview of human computer interaction theory, an introduction to a problem (case), and an introduction to the online resources available to students;

a series of pre-1-hr face-to-face lecture readings; a case scenario (i.e., problem assignment); a series of online learning materials and open resources to support the understanding of the content and discovery of a solution; and

an opportunity for online discussions with both the instructor and other students.

In the re-designed course, students were also given the option of working individually or in groups. Dalsgaard and Gosk (2007) concluded that re-designing the course to the blended model resulted in two substantial changes: first, a very different role for the teachers and students and second, a change in focus from the lecture as transmission of information toward the selfgoverned, active work of the students (p. 35) in uncovering content in relation to the case assignment. Teachers became coaches and students became problem-solvers. In another example, Hughes (2007) used a blended learning approach in an undergraduate education course to provide proactive assistance to at risk students and found an improvement in coursework submission and course retention (p. 361). Ireland et.al. (2007) found that transferring to a blended model in a nursing education course enhanced the student experience by appealing to a variation of student learning styles (p. 129). Their research course was re-designed into a blend of classroom lectures which were also available online, tutorials, seminars, workbooks (in both print and electronic formats), online


6

discussion forums, an online summative assessment and a final, formative assessment provided to students in advance (p. 124). Appendix I demonstrates the range of possible combinations of blended learning from Kings (2009) work on the subject. Timing (synchronous vs. asynchronous) and technology (online vs. face-to-face) are the main considerations in the chart. Blends consist of combinations of 2, 3 or 4 technology options: face-to-face, synchronous, asynchronous or pre-recorded medium. Combining synchronous and asynchronous options would result in a fully online learning experience which is not considered blended by King (pre-recorded medium is a form of asynchronous technology). Context, learner needs, time constraints, and the availability of technology (which is changing at a rapid pace) are further considerations in the decision of blended learning options (King, 2009). Hoffman and Miners (2008) workplace example of blended learning for a leadership development program included:

a self-study online component, an instructor-led online or classroom component, and an on-the-job performance assessment.

Critical to the success of this blended program was the integration of all three components. Adult learners were able to see connections between the 3 components and how each built on the one before. According to Hoffman and Miner (2008), organizations have different reasons for engaging in blended learning besides worker retention and achievement. Blended learning is seen as more convenient, flexible and cost efficient than solely face-to-face training. Training and development officers also claim that blended learning appeals to a variety of worker learning


7

styles. For example, some workers prefer to learn independently, others need to apply it immediately on the job and still others learn best with co-workers. Twiggs (2003) three models of blended learning, the supplemental model, the replacement model and the emporium model (see appendix II) provides a summation of the general options available to instructors and instructional designers moving to this approach. The 3 models also reflect a progression on two different levels. First, for the instructor who is somewhat cautious of instructional technology, starting from the supplemental model may provide some comfort. As experience with technology increases, it will be easier to experiment with a replacement model or the emporium model. Secondly, an important philosophical transition is made from the supplemental to replacement or emporium model which is the shift in responsibility from teaching the content to learning the content, from a teacher-centred approach to a learner or student-centred approach.

Blended Learning and Technology What is needed in order to develop an ideal blended learning environment? The answer varies slightly between individuals and institutions. From an individual perspective, such as that of the learner or student, Hameed, Badii & Cullen (2008) identify the following technological requirements to be essential components for a successful blended learning experience. First, an individual must have broadband access so that s/he is able to access the World Wide Web; secondly, an individual must have a personal computer with a relatively high specification (Hameed, Badii & Cullen, 2008, p.7). In addition, students must have proficient computer and internet skills sufficient for them to register, communicate, and download (Hameed, Badii, Cullen, 2008, p.4) in order to participate effectively.


8

Likewise, there are specific technological prerequisites an institution and/or organization planning on offering a blended learning course must meet. It is vital that the course material is very carefully structured (Hameed, Badii, Cullen, 2008, p. 2). Furthermore, the institution/organization must offer sufficient interactive multimedia resources (Hameed, Badii, Cullen, 2008, p.5). Strong emphasis is placed on the word interactive as asynchronous and synchronous methods of course delivery are characteristic of any online learning course (Hrastinski, 2008).

Blended Learning and its Effectiveness While there has been considerable agreement that blended learning is a very popular strategy employed by a wide variety of organizations, there has long been some question as to its level of effectiveness (Kim, Bonk, & Oh, 2008). As mentioned earlier, blended learning essentially combines the traditional classroom approach of face-to-face learning with modern technology through the incorporation of online or web-based instruction. Numerous frameworks have been suggested to implement blended learning (Kim, Bonk, & Oh, 2008) but Chandra and Fisher (2009) recommend that educators take an active role when web-based learning environments are developed. Chandra and Fisher (2009) state that through such an approach, teachers have a far greater control in terms of how the learning activities are designed, developed and sequenced (p. 32). While there is no perfect model for blended learning there is a significantly growing argument regarding the benefits of blended learning stating that when employed effectively, blended learning provides an educational environment highly conducive to student learning (Vaughan, 2007, p.82). While opinions vary between students, faculty members and administrators, surveys have provided solid evidence in favour of blended learning.


9

Students have highlighted a number of perks associated with blended learning. The most positive feature that blended learning has to offer is the flexibility it allows (Vaughan, 2007). While the very nature of blended learning necessitates a reduction in class time it is this very feature that is being considered a double edged sword. On the one hand, students favour being able to work from home, thereby reducing commuting time and the search for a parking space; yet on the other hand blended learning requires a considerable degree of discipline and time management skills (Vaughan, 2007). Despite the fact that blended learning does require a degree of self-discipline, all in all, students prefer this method of learning as it allows them to pace themselves at a rate that suits their lifestyle as opposed to the more rigid structure of traditional classrooms, thus allowing more scheduling options for different courses (Vaughan, 2007). The faculty perspective mirrors the largely positive responses voiced among the students. Reports demonstrated that not only did more interaction occur in their blended courses but they thought this interaction was of a higher quality than what they typically see in the face-to-face classroom (Vaughan, 2007, p.86) In addition, blended learning allows for the implementation of new approaches to learning and new types of educational technology (Vaughan, 2007, p.87) a concept that was considered appealing by educators. As with any model, educators outlined a few pitfalls that were associated with blended learning, perhaps the most significant being the amount of time involved with the planning and development of a blended learning course (Vaughan, 2007). In terms of the administration perspective, blended learning is fast becoming a brilliant method to promote the reputation of an establishment, potentially increase course selections, enhance an institutions reputation, expand access to an institutions educational offerings, and


10

decrease costs of operation (Vaughan, 2007). Yet a great deal of work must be done by an institution in order to reach the gains associated with blended learning. While the administrative perspective might be positive, efforts must be made by any institution that is considering blended learning to create a policy framework . . . which explicitly states how blended learning supports the vision, values, and principles of the institution (Vaughan, 2007, p.92). However, caution must be shown; not all blended learning strategies are created equal. One of the challenges that students and faculty members repeatedly encounter when dealing with blended learning environments is the concept of discussion. Discussion for discussions sake may be the new 21st centurys busy work in online courses (Gradel & Edson, 2011, p.195). There is also a large risk of dealing with discussion fatigue in which students must quickly post in an effort to beat their classmates so as not to repeat previous comments.

Trends in Blending Learning Blended learning options are constantly evolving and are now considered important tools that increase learning potential and provide richer learning experiences (Eduviews, 2009). As Garrison and Kanuka (2004) state leaders of higher education are challenged to position their institutions to meet the connectivity demands of prospective students and meet growing expectations and demands for higher quality learning experiences and outcomes (p. 95). Although the term blended learning has become a popular buzzword throughout education in recent years, blended learning models are not new (Singh, 2003). With the advent of the radio, the television, and more recently mainstream computer use and the Internet, learning environments and the delivery of education through mixed formats have evolved (Harris, 2011). Singh (2003) outlined that in the past blended learning was comprised of physical classroom formats, such as lectures, labs, books, or handouts (p. 6) however, organizations now have a


11

multitude of choices and approaches (Singh, 2003). While combining the delivery of a variety of teaching techniques is not new, over the past decade, the tendency towards online and blended learning formats has been significantly and steadily increasing (So, H. & Bonk, C. J., 2010). So and Bonk (2010) state that this tendency can be observed throughout all sectors of education including K-12 schools as well as adult learning in higher education, the military, government settings, and corporate training environments (p. 189). Learning, supported by technology, is commonly demanded by learners and developments in technology make that delivery a feasible aspect of education (Henrich, A. & Sieber, S, 2008). In addition, Tucker and Wisla (2011) state that an increasing number of post-secondary institutions are using blended learning formats to engage and retain adult learners (p. 3991). Recent research has indicated that blended learning is the future trend for higher education (Tucker & Wisla, 2011). There are many reasons why an instructor or learner would want to choose a blended learning approach over other learning alternatives (Sahare & Thampi, 2010). These reasons include improved instruction and learning, increased access and flexibility, and increased cost effectiveness (Sahare & Thampi, 2010). A common reason for adopting blended learning approaches is to improve both instruction and learning. The benefits of the blended approach are based on the assumption that there are inherent benefits in face-to-face interaction as well as the understanding that there are advantages to using online methods (Waddoups & Howell, 2002, p. 19). Another suggestion is that blended instruction promotes greater student interaction and encourages learning that has a greater student focus (Sahare & Thampi, 2010). One of the important aspects influencing the growth of online learning environments is access (Bonk, Olson, Wisher, & Orvis, 2002). While access is essential, flexibility is also a key


12

component of blended learning. As Sahare and Thampi (2010) state, learner flexibility and convenience is also of growing importance as more mature learners with outside commitments (such as work and family) seek additional education. Many learners want the convenience offered by a distributed environment, and, at the same time, do not want to sacrifice the social interaction and human touch they are used to in a F2F classroom (p. 3974). Another defining characteristic of blended learning is the ability of the Internet to provide an interactive learning experience to large numbers of students (e.g., high enrolment and/or high demand courses) in ways that are accessible and cost effective (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p. 100). Singh (2003) presents support that blended learning can be very cost effective due to the ability to work with off-the-shelf content. Such content can increase the flexibility to blend in custom content and improve the user experience while minimizing cost (Singh, 2003, p. 5). With such compelling reasons to utilize a blended approach, and as online environments continue into their second decade of use in higher education (Bonk & Kim, 2004), a number of upcoming trends have been forecasted. Bonk and Kim (2004) outlined 10 predicted trends linked to the expansion of blended learning, outlined below: 1 - Mobile Blended Learning: Based on the adoption of handheld communications, blended learning will increasingly involve mobile devices. Such devices will be provide the ability for on-demand learning and, as Bonk and Kim (2004) suggest, with the increased use the time and the place for learning, working, and socializing will blur (p. 12). With greater accessibility to a broader range of potential learners, opportunities for lifelong learning will increase (Bonk & Kim, 2004).


13

2 - Greater Visualization, Individualization, and Hands-on Learning: Blended learning environments will support a greater range of learning styles and individual differences in learning (Bonk & Kim, 2004, p. 13). This support will bring with it a variety of new multimedia options (e.g. graphs, simulations, images, video) that a user will be able to interact with and that can be individualized for the learning but collaborative at the same time (Bonk & Kim, 2004). 3 - Self-Determined Blended Learning: Individuals will have greater control over how much of their learning experience is blended as well as the methods by which the blended learning is delivered. Along with this trend, we will see an increase of self-paced and selfregulated learning (Bonk & Kim, 2004). 4 - Increased Connectedness, Community, and Collaboration: One of the major strengths of blended learning is the ability to connect individuals and various situational contexts. This connectivity will help to add the diversity of cultures to learning situations and the ability to obtain on-demand expertise from specialists. Students can collaborate and gain knowledge from participating in global work teams which will extend the boundaries of learning (Bonk & Kim, 2004). 5 - Increased Authenticity and On-Demand Learning: Online tools will be utilized in the provision of timely instruction that can assist with addressing case-based problems and also help to integrate these problems into real life situations. In this manner, blended learning will complement and strengthen a number of on-demand learning structures such as online case learning, scenario learning, simulations and role play, and problem-based learning (Bonk & Kim, 2004, p. 15). 6 - Linking Work and Learning: As blended learning options continue to be deployed, the distinction between training and more formal methods of learning will diminish (Bonk &


14

Kim, 2004). Bonk and Kim (2004) claim that degrees one may obtain will increasingly take place in the workplace, both in terms of credits received and credit for work performed (p. 16). 7 - Changed Calendaring: Traditional time constraints will disappear as blended learning options provide learners with the ability to complete courses, learning experiences, or degrees as their schedules allow. This will increase a level of ambiguity for instructors as the desire to complete programs will be at the discretion of the learner and not at a predefined time as set out by an organization (Bonk & Kim, 2004). 8 - Blended Learning Course Designations: As courses are developed with the integration of blended concepts, universities and other instructional institutions will develop special designations for those courses that have reduced seat time, or are provided completely online (Bonk & Kim, 2004). 9 - Changed Instructor Roles: The role of the traditional instructor will change in a blended environment, however the importance of the instructor will increase. As learners will require greater support, various instructor skills will become more prominent, including coaching, mentoring, and counselling (Bonk & Kim, 2004, p. 18). 10 - The Emergence of Blended Learning Specialists: Generally, blended learning options are more intricate and add a level of complexity as compared to face-to-face or completely online learning (Bonk & Kim, 2004). The predicted trend is that a new class of specialist will emerge, with industry certifications, master degree programs, and developed best practices (Bonk & Kim, 2004). These trends and the reasons for adoption discussed earlier have evolved into a variety of approaches to blended learning, and as such a number of models have emerged. Staker (2010) profiles 40 organizations that have blended or have plans to blend online learning with brick-


15

and-mortar classrooms (p. 3). Based on this study, Staker (2011) outlines six models that blended learning is gravitating towards. These models include:1. Face-to-Face Driver: A face-to-face instructor delivers the majority of the curriculum.

The instructor incorporates online learning on a case-by-case basis as a supplement or to remediate aspects of a students education. Such online learning would often take place in the back of the classroom or in a lab setting.2. Rotation: In a particular course, students alternate on a predetermined schedule between

learning online in a self-paced environment and participating in a classroom with a traditional instructor.3. Flex: Utilizes an online platform that delivers most of the course curriculum. Instructors

provide in-person, on-site, support on an accommodating basis as necessary. Such support is typically delivered through tutoring or small group sessions.4. Online Lab: Relies on an online platform to deliver the entire course to students, but in a

traditional school setting in a lab environment. Such a model is typically delivered by an online instructor and supervised by assistants that normally offer little subject-matter expertise. Usually, students in this model also take traditional courses in classroom settings.5. Self-Blend: Students decide to take one, or a number of courses online as a complement

to the course offerings that are available in class. The online courses are always taken remotely, which is the distinguishing factor from the above online model.6. Online Driver: Utilizes an online platform and teacher to deliver the curriculum of a

course. Students work in disparate locations and periodic face-to-face interactions may be optional or required.


16

It should be noted that the programs reviewed in Stakers study fell into these six distinctive models, however he envisioned that as innovators develop new versions of blended learning, the contours of these clusters will continue to evolve (Staker, 2011, p. 7). In the workplace, the current state of blended learning appears to follow a similar adoption style as is evidenced in education. The results of a study by Kim, Bonk and Oh (2008) indicated, blended learning has become a popular delivery mode in workplace learning settings (p. 6). In the study, a survey was used to garner data, targeting a variety of organizations large and small, including non-for-profit, business, and government organizations (Kim, Bonk & Oh, 2008). A total of 118 surveys were completed, with greater than two-thirds of organizations surveyed, responding that they were already utilizing blended learning methods in employee training with another 14% considering the approach (Kim, Bonk & Oh, 2008). Survey scores on respondents attitudes towards blended learning approaches were equally positive. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most skeptical and 5, the most optimistic, the median participant score was 3.68 (Kim, Bonk & Oh, 2008).

Challenges and Success Factors in Blended Learning While many models of blended learning look promising for all aspects of education, and the trends that are on the horizon are looking to revamp traditional learning experiences, there are also features of blended learning that will present challenges and require careful consideration (Sahare & Thampi, 2010). One of the challenges faced by educators is the integration of traditional and emerging teaching formats while balancing students varied learning styles (Sahare and Thampi, 2010, p. 3971). Integrating blended learning within the organization and committing to its long term viability is an important criteria for success


17

(Trasler, 2002). This commitment may not be realized by some institutions who may move too quickly without a comprehensive integration plan: in their enthusiasm to harness the potential of the technology revolution, some organizations have invested heavily in multi-media technology without increasing the effectiveness of their learning methodology (Trasler, 2002, p. 193). Trasler outlines that the benefits of learning can only be delivered when there is a strategic commitment that is specific, relevant and effective (Trasler, 2002. p. 193). Institutions also need to be flexible in their approach to blended learning: flexibility, variety and adaptability is the name of the game in terms of attracting, retaining and motivating learners (Trasler, 2002, p. 193). Additional issues have been identified by Sahare and Thampi (2010) such as:

Teachers need to consider how to integrate blended learning resources into lesson plans Teachers need training on how to find such resources or how to create content for themselves Skill level and experience of learners will need to be considered when planning first use of these tools Communicating effectively online is an issue and rules/guidelines for writing in this medium should be provided Issues of confidentiality and privacy should be discussed with students before they become part of online learning communities Expectations for student and facilitator will need to be explored early on in the blended learning process and ground rules should be developed guiding collaborative student work.

In organizational settings, the results of a study by Kim, Bonk and Oh (2008) concluded that several obstacles to adoption existed. The most considerable issues identified included insufficient management support and commitment, and the fast paced change of technology (Kim, Bonk & Oh, 2008), which very much supports Traslers argument above. Another interesting point identified that 13% of organizations surveyed indicated that a general lack of understanding of blended learning was a significant barrier to adoption (Kim, Bonk & Oh, 2008).


18

Conclusion In our world, technology and innovation are evolving at an incredible pace and becoming ever more entwined in our daily lives. This evolution has also impacted the realm of education and the methods by which training is delivered, most notably by the adoption of blended learning concepts. A growing number of trends, as outlined in this paper, provide institutions with compelling reasons to explore and adopt blended approaches to traditional learning. While some of these approaches may present challenges for institutions as they struggle with change, the consideration of the adoption of blended learning into curriculums, and its delivery, may not be optional for institutions that wish to stay current. As Sahare and Tampi (2010) assert, in the future learning systems will be differentiated not based on whether they blend but rather by how they blend (p. 3976).


19

Appendix I

Kings (2009) Nine Blended Learning Options: No. of technology options included: 4 3 Face to face x x x x x x x Synchronous Online x x x x x x x x x Asynchronous Online x x x x Pre-recorded Medium x x x x

2

Adapted from Table 1, p. 195, King, K., Blended Learning.


20

Appendix II Twiggs (2003) Three Models of Blended Learning

Increasing responsibility on the student for self-directed learning. Increasing comfort level with instructional technology


21

References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: The Sloan-C Consortium. Allen, I.E., Seaman, J. and Garrett, R. (2007). Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/Blending_In.pdf Blackboard. (2009). Blended Learning: Where Online and Face-to-Face Instruction Intersect for 21st Century Teaching and Learning. Eduviews, 1-14. Bonk, C.T., Olson, T., Wisher, R.A., and Orvis, K. (2002). Reflections on Blended Distributed Learning: The Armor Captions Carrier Course. Bonk, C.J. and Kim, K-J. (2004). Future Directions of Blended Learning in Higher Education and Workplace Learning Settings. Retrieved from http://publicationshare.com/bonk_future.pdf Chandra, V., Fisher, D. (2009). Students Perceptions of a Blended Web-Based Learning Environment. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 31-44. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=cd4a8342f070-4647-98be-a83591a0db5d%40sessionmgr104&vid=10&hid=9 Collins, J.W. and OBrien, N.P. (Eds.). (2003). The Greenwood Dictionary of Education. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group. Garrison, D. R., and Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended Learning: Uncovering its Transformative Potential in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2),95-105. Gradel, K. and Edson, A. (2011). Cooperative Learning: Smart Pedagogy and Tools for Online and Hybrid Courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2),193-212. Hameed, S., Badii, A., and Cullen, A. J. (2008). Effective E-Learning Integration with Traditional Learning in a Blended Learning Environment. Retrieved from http://www.iseing.org/emcis/EMCIS2008/Proceedings/Refereed %20Papers/Contributions/C%2037/Blended_Learning%20efficiency%20asessmentOKOK.pdf Harris, M. (2011). The Evolution of Blended Learning. Retrieved from http://edoptions.com/blog/?p=596 Hill, J. R. (2006). Flexible learning environments: Leveraging the affordances of flexible delivery and flexible learning. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 187-197.


22

Hofmann, J. and Miner, N. (2008). Real Blended Learning Stands Up. Training and Development. pp. 28-31. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/lc/2008/1008_hofmann.html Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and Synchronous E-Learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolu m/AsynchronousandSynchronousELea/163445 Hughes, G. (2007). Using Blended Learning to Increase Learner Support and Improve Retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 349-363. Ireland, J., Martindale, S., Johnson, N., Adams, D., Eboh, W. and Mowatt, E. (2009). Blended Learning in Education: Effects on Knowledge and Attitude. British Journal of Nursing. 18(2), 124 - 130. Kim, K. J., Bonk, C. J. and Oh, E. (2008). The Present and Future State of Blended Learning in Workplace Learning Settings in the United States. Performance Improvement, 47(8). Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.qe2aproxy.mun.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=cd4a8342-f070-4647-98be-a83591a0db5d %40sessionmgr104&vid=5&hid=9 King, K. P. (2008). Blended Learning. In Tomei, L. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration. (pp. 85-87). doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-881-9.ch013 Retrieved from http://www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/11754/Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can "Blended Learning" Be Redeemed?. E-Learning, 2(1), 17-26. Kyei-Blankson, L., Godwyll, F., Nur-Awaleh, M. and Keengwe, J. (2011). The New Blend: When Students are Given the Option to Choose. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 433-436). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Rossett, A. (Ed.). (2002). The ASTD e-learning handbook. Retrieved from http://books.mcgraw-hill.com/authors/rossett/bl.htm Sahare, S. and Thampi, G. (2010). Blended Learning: Current Trends and Issues. In Z. Abas et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010 (pp. 3970-3977). AACE. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51-54.


23

Sharma, P. (2010). Key Concepts in ELT: Blended Learning. ELT Journal. 64(4), 456-458. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccq043Dalsgaard, C., & Godsk, M. (2007). Transforming Traditional Lectures into Problem-Based Blended Learning: Challenges and Experiences. Open Learning, 22(1), 29-42. So, H.-J., and Bonk, C. J. (2010). Examining the Roles of Blended Learning Approaches in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Environments: A Delphi Study. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (3), 189200. Sonkambl, C. and Pagare, P. (2010). Use of Blended Learning Approach in Teacher Education. In Z. Abas et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010 (pp. 3978-3981). AACE. Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning profiles of emerging models. Innosight Institute. Trasler, J. (2002). Effective Learning Depends on the Blend. Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(5), 191-193. Tucker, A. and Wisla, H. (2010). Addressing Adult Learning Needs through Blended Learning Environments. In Z. Abas et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010 (p. 3991). AACE. Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: New Models for Online Learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(5), 28-38. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on Blended Learning in Higher Education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94. Waddoups, G., and Howell, S. (2002). Bringing Online Learning to Campus: The hybridization of teaching and learning at Brigham Young University. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(2), 1-21.

Group Paper

Documents

Transcript of Group Paper