Chapter

 1:  Understanding  Blended  Learning  

Third  Edition  
BlendKit  Reader  Third  Edition  edited  by  Linda  Futch  and  Baiyun  Chen.    The  Review  Team  included  Gerald  
Bergtrom.  
BlendKit  Reader  Second  Edition  Review  Team  included  Linda  Futch,  Wendy  Clark,  Loretta  Driskel,  Wilma  
Hodges,  Cub  Kahn,  Apostolos  Koutropoulos,  Denise  Landrum-­Geyer,  and  John  Okewole.  If  the  second  edition  is  
helpful,  thank  the  review  team.  
Originally  edited  by  Kelvin  Thompson,  Ed.D.  
Portions  of  the  following  chapter  are  adapted  from  the  Blended  Learning  Toolkit  under  the  terms  of  a  Creative  
Commons  Attribution-­NonCommercial-­ShareAlike  3.0  Unported  license  and  “Design  of  Blended  Learning  in  K-­12”  
in  Blended  Learning  in  K-­12  under  the  terms  of  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution-­ShareAlike  3.0  Unported  license.  
In  addition,  portions  of  the  following  chapter  are  adapted  from  “Planning  Your  Online  Course”  by  June  Kaminski  
and  Sylvia  Currie  and  “Looking  Forward:  Stories  of  Practice”  by  Susan  Crichton  and  Elizabeth  Childs  in  
the  Commonwealth  of  Learning‘s  Education  for  a  Digital  World  under  the  terms  of  a  Creative  Commons  
Attribution-­ShareAlike  3.0  International  license.  

Questions  to  Ponder  

•   Is  it  most  helpful  to  think  of  blended  learning  as  an  online  enhancement  to  a  face-­to-­face  learning  
environment,  a  face-­to-­face  enhancement  to  an  online  learning  environment,  or  as  something  else  
entirely?  
•   In  what  ways  can  blended  learning  courses  be  considered  the  “best  of  both  worlds”  (i.e.,  face-­to-­face  and  
online)?  What  could  make  blended  learning  the  “worst  of  both  worlds?”  
•   As  you  consider  designing  a  blended  learning  course,  what  course  components  are  you  open  to  
implementing  differently  than  you  have  in  the  past?  How  will  you  decide  which  components  will  occur  
online  and  which  will  take  place  face-­to-­face?  How  will  you  manage  the  relationship  between  these  two  
modalities?  
•   How  often  will  you  meet  with  students  face-­to-­face?  How  many  hours  per  week  will  students  be  engaged  
online,  and  how  many  hours  per  week  will  students  meet  face-­to-­face?  Is  the  amount  of  student  time  
commitment  consistent  with  the  total  time  commitment  of  comparable  courses  taught  in  other  modalities  
(e.g.,  face-­to-­face)?  

What  is  Blended  Learning?  

Blended  courses  (also  known  as  hybrid  or  mixed-­mode  courses)  are  classes  where  a  portion  of  the  traditional  
face-­to-­face  instruction  is  replaced  by  web-­based  online  learning.  McGee  and  Reis  (2012)  point  out  that  
while  there  is  not  absolute  agreement  within  higher  education  on  the  exact  make-­up  of  a  blended  course,  
institutions  generally  use  “blended”  (or  related  terms)  to  refer  to  some  combination  of  on-­campus  class  meeting  
and  online  activities.  Graham,  Henrie,  and  Gibbons  (2014)  concur  that  “[m]odels  adopting  the  [combining  online  
and  face-­to-­face  instruction]  definition  are  the  most  prominent  in  the  research”  (p.  21).  Blended  learning  is  a  
phenomenon  subjected  to  much  on-­going  research.  After  reviewing  over  200  masters’  theses  and  doctoral  
dissertations  related  to  blended  learning,  Drysdale,  Graham,  Spring,  and  Halverson  (2013)  concluded  that  “[m]ore  
graduate  research  is  being  conducted  on  blended  learning  each  year”  (p.  98).  Additionally,  Dziuban,  Picciano,  
Graham  and  Moskal  (2106)  have  edited  a  new  collection  of  research  on  blended  learning  as  a  sequel  to  the  two  
landmark  books  previously  published  (Picciano  and  Dziuban,  2007;;  Picciano,  Dziuban,  and  Graham,  2014).  
 
Nevertheless,  practical  questions  often  predominate  in  the  minds  of  faculty  and  designers  new  to  blended  
learning.  For  instance,  how  much  of  the  face-­to-­face  instruction  must  be  replaced  by  online  coursework?  This  
question  will  vary  greatly  by  class,  discipline,  and  learning  objectives.  The  Sloan  Consortium  (a  professional  
organization  dedicated  to  postsecondary  online  learning)  defines  blended  learning  as  a  course  where  30%-­70%  of  
the  instruction  is  delivered  online.  While  this  is  a  useful  guideline,  it  may  not  be  sufficient  to  cover  every  blended  
learning  configuration.  
 
The  EDUCAUSE  Learning  Initiative  (ELI)  provides  many  useful  resources  related  blended  learning,  including  
a  report  on  a  national  focus  session  and  a  framework  for  faculty  workshops.  ELI’s  parent  organization,  
EDUCAUSE,  has  also  identified  five  chapter-­length  case  studies  of  institutional  blended  learning  models  from  the  
eBook  Game  Changers:  Education  and  Information  Technologies.  
 
McGee  and  Reis  (2012)  observe  that  in  blended  learning  quite  often  “the  process  of  design  is  emphasized  as  one  
of  re-­design,  implying  that  those  involved  in  the  design  process  are  willing  and  able  to  see  beyond  what  has  been  
done  in  the  traditional  classroom  and  re-­conceptualize  what  can  be  done  in  multiple  delivery  modes”  (p.  17).  The  
addition  of  technology  to  any  academic  program  must  be  accompanied  by  fundamental  process  re-­design.  
The  National  Center  for  Academic  Transformation  has  done  a  significant  amount  of  work  related  to  course  
redesign,  including  the  innovative  use  of  technology  for  blended  learning.  With  funding  from  the  Next  Generation  
Learning  Challenges  (NGLC)  program,  the  Blended  Learning  Toolkit  web  site  has  been  designed  to  provide  an  
infrastructure  for  participating  faculty  and  institutions  that  includes  innovative  technology,  curricular  reinvention,  
participant  training,  and  ongoing  assessment  support,  all  of  which  are  necessary  for  meaningful,  
sustainable,  disruptive  transformation  of  the  status  quo.  (For  more  on  affordances  of  “disruption,”  please  
see  http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-­concepts).  

Benefits  of  Blended  Learning  

Blended  course  have  proven  to  be  among  the  most  popular  choices  for  students  at  institutions  where  they  are  
offered  (Olson,  2003  cited  in  Drysdale,  Graham,  Spring,  and  Halverson,  2013  and  Kaleta,  Garnham,  and  Aycock,  
2005).  At  first  glance,  this  popularity  seems  intuitive  because  blended  courses  allow  students  and  faculty  to  take  
advantage  of  much  of  the  flexibility  and  convenience  of  an  online  course  while  retaining  the  benefits  of  the  face-­to-­
face  classroom  experience.  
Although  fully  online  learning  has  become  well  established  in  higher  education,  many  institutions  appear  to  be  
struggling  with  conceptualizing  and  implementing  blended  learning.  Yet,  where  blended  courses  have  succeeded,  
they  have  most  often  done  so  when  strategically  aligned  with  an  institution’s  mission  and  goals.  The  development  
and  delivery  of  blended  courses  can  be  used  to  address  a  variety  of  institutional,  faculty,  and  student  needs.  
•   For  universities,  blended  courses  can  be  part  of  a  strategy  to  compensate  for  limited  classroom  space,  as  
well  as  a  way  to  think  differently  about  encouraging  faculty  collaboration.  
•   For  faculty,  blended  courses  can  be  a  method  to  infuse  new  engagement  opportunities  into  established  
courses  or,  for  some,  provide  a  transitional  opportunity  between  fully  face-­to-­face  and  fully  online  
instruction.  
•   For  students,  blended  courses  offer  the  conveniences  of  online  learning  combined  with  the  social  and  
instructional  interactions  that  may  not  lend  themselves  to  online  delivery  (e.g.,  lab  sections  or  proctored  
assessments).  
If  an  institution’s  blended  learning  strategy  can  be  designed  to  address  the  needs  and  dynamics  of  all  three  
constituencies  (institution,  faculty,  and  student)  simultaneously,  then  blended  learning  can  become  a  powerful  
force  for  institutional  transformation.  
As  cited  in  the  U.S.  Department  of  Education’s  (2010)  “Evaluation  of  Evidence-­Based  Practices  in  Online  
Learning:  A  Meta-­Analysis  and  Review  of  Online  Learning  Studies,”  “Students  in  online  conditions  performed  
modestly  better,  on  average,  than  those  learning  the  same  material  through  traditional  face-­to-­face  instruction”  (p.  
xiv)  and,  notably,  “Instruction  combining  online  and  face-­to-­face  elements  had  a  larger  advantage  relative  to  
purely  face-­to-­face  instruction  than  did  purely  online  instruction”  (p.  xv).  Not  only  do  students  perform  better  in  
blended  courses,  but  the  electronic  resources  inherent  in  the  modality  offer  other  advantages  as  well.  For  
example,  student  performance  analytics  can  be  used  to  study  and  better  understand  student  learning.  Data  
analytics  can  also  identify  students  who  need  early  intervention,  thus  increasing  retention.  The  online  tools  
available  in  blended  courses  can  also  significantly  enhance  student  engagement,  ensuring  that  all  students  
participate  in  course  discussions  and  benefit  from  collaborative  learning.  
When  properly  implemented,  blended  learning  can  result  in  improved  student  success,  satisfaction,  and  retention.  
For  instance,  the  University  of  Central  Florida  has  consistently  seen  such  results  over  the  17  years  of  their  own  
blended  learning  initiative.  Since  beginning  this  initiative,  as  of  the  end  of  the  2015-­2016  academic  year,  UCF  has  
delivered  10,941  blended  course  sections  containing  394,962  student  registrations  and  generating  
820,492  semester  credit  hours.  
Designing  Blended  Learning  Courses  
Arguably,  we  seek  to  understand  blended  learning  so  that  we  might  identify  whether  it  has  any  benefits  to  offer  
us.    Such  affordances  are  perhaps  made  most  evident  by  considering  the  range  of  approaches  to  blended  
learning  design.  McGee  and  Reis  (2012)  analyzed  67  “best  practices  guides”  (p.  9)  for  blended  learning  and  found  
that  a  “loosely  articulated  design  process  allows  variability  and  flexibility  in  the  design  of  blended  courses”  (p.  17).  
However,  designing  any  course  is  an  exercise  in  balancing  control  and  emergence.  

Blended  Learning  Design  as  a  Controlled  Process  

In  2002  Troha  asked  “why  do  so  many  blended  initiatives  turn  into  frustrating  boondoggles,  consuming  far  more  
time…  than  anyone  anticipated?”  (Troha,  2002,  para  2).  Unfortunately,  the  undesired  outcomes  often  appear  
during  the  implementation  of  the  course,  or  even  long  after  substantial  amounts  of  time,  effort,  and  enthusiasm  
have  been  expended.  How  can  the  practicing  teacher  avoid  blended  learning  pitfalls?  McGee  and  Reis  (2012)  
suggest  that  the  answer  may  lie  in  the  design  process:  “There  is  clear  consensus  that  the  best  strategies  for  
design  begins  [sic]  by  clearly  defining  course  objectives  before  coming  up  with  course  activities,  assignments  and  
assessments.  Course  objectives  are  particularly  critical  for  blended  courses  because  objectives  can  inform  
content  delivery  mechanism  (in  class  or  online),  pedagogy  (bridging  between  the  classroom  and  online  activities),  
and  requisite  amount  and  locations  for  class  meetings  and  interactions”  (p.  11).  
This  section  develops  a  model  of  best  practices  to  reduce  the  potential  headaches  and  realize  the  promise  of  
blended  learning.  The  importance  of  planning  is  reinforced.  At  each  stage,  control  needs  to  be  maintained  from  
the  beginning  of  the  planning  stage  to  ensure  desired  results.  It  is  assumed  that  a  course  design  process  is  being  
pursued  that  starts  with  learning  objectives  and  that  includes  a  general  outline  used  to  guide  the  development  of  
the  course,  its  delivery  and  evaluation.  Guiding  questions  such  the  following  are  helpful  to  keep  in  mind:  “What’s  
the  best  mix  of  traditional,  live,  teacher-­led  presentation  and  synchronous  or  asynchronous,  technology-­driven  
methods  of  teaching?”  It  is  important  to  determine  your  role  as  a  teacher  in  the  learning  process.  Should  it  be  one  
that  is  primarily  directive  or  facilitative?  Also,  decide  the  importance  of  interaction  amongst  the  students.  These  
questions  may  be  answered  differently  depending  on  the  teaching/learning  context.  In  any  event,  blended  learning  
lends  itself  to  learner-­centered,  teacher-­guided  (as  opposed  to  teacher-­directed),  interactive,  and  student-­
collaborative  learning.  
Content  and  learning  activities  that  provide  for  ample  practice  must  be  introduced  into  the  course  if  the  student  is  
to  achieve  course  goals.  Blended  learning  is  advantageous  to  the  learner.  Research  has  shown  the  limitations  of  
applying  a  generalized  style  of  teaching,  rather  than  modifying  lesson  plans  to  fit  the  needs  of  the  student.  
“Increasingly,  organizations  are  recognizing  the  importance  of  tailoring  learning  to  the  individual  rather  than  
applying  a  ‘one-­size-­fits-­all’  approach.”  (Thorne,  2003)  Of  course,  common  needs  exist,  but  blended  learning  
allows  the  teacher  to  look  for  creative  ways  and  use  a  variety  of  media  to  address  the  specific  needs  of  his  
students.  
When  a  teacher  designs  his  lesson  plan,  it  is  important  to  note  the  type  of  learning  activity  (e.g.  lecture,  case  
study,  role  play,  simulation,  game,  etc.)  that  best  conveys  the  objectives  of  the  lesson.  There  are  two  reasons  for  
listing  traditional  teaching  methods  only  at  this  point,  instead  of  both  classroom  and  online  activities:  
•   We  as  teachers  usually  establish  on  paper  the  “ideal”  learning  experience  when  you  work  under  a  more  
familiar,  traditional  style  of  teaching.  It  is  live,  face-­to-­face,  instructor-­facilitated  and  student-­collaborative.  
•   Once  you  have  established  the  lesson  plan  for  the  “ideal”  learning  experience,  you  can  systematically  
analyze  the  elements  that  can  be  delivered  online  without  compromising  learning  effectiveness.  You  will  
discover  here  what  might  be  best  left  in  a  classroom  setting.  
Blended  learning  is  not  simply  adding  an  online  component  to  a  face-­to-­face  course.  Technology  in  a  course  
should  be  used  wisely  –  to  facilitate  student  learning.  Technology  should  not  be  used  just  to  show  off  technology.  
Excellent  opportunities  exist  for  teachers  to  make  learning  interactive,  dynamic,  and  fun  when  used  properly.  The  
technology  aspect  of  a  lesson  should  be  like  a  good  baseball  umpire  –  it  (like  the  umpire)  is  good  if  it  (he)  goes  
unnoticed.  
“Since  the  intent  of  blended  learning  is  to  enhance  learning  by  combining  the  best  of  both  worlds…elements  of  the  
outline  that  appear  to  lend  themselves  to  self-­study  online  should  be  highlighted.  Such  elements  tend  to  include  
easy-­to-­interpret,  straightforward  information  that  is  relatively  easy  for  the  (student)  to  accurately  grasp  on  his/her  
own.”  (Troha,  2003)  Students  should  be  able  to  perform  required  tasks  online  with  little  or  no  prompting  by  the  
instructor.  Of  course,  teachers  should  guide  their  students  along,  but  when  a  student  can  accomplish  a  task  online  
with  limited  assistance,  that  student  encounters  a  learning  experience  that  is  deeper  and  more  rewarding.  
Blended  learning  courses  are  dynamic  by  their  very  nature.  Revisions  will  need  to  be  made  to  adapt  to  the  
learning  needs  of  its  students.  Knowing  what  works  and  what  does  not  come  with  experience.  The  best  resource  
for  teachers  to  create  and  implement  a  blended  learning  course  is  another  teacher  or  a  network  of  teachers  who  
have  had  experience  with  launching  such  courses.  
With  purpose  and  context  in  mind,  the  designer  can  select,  combine,  and  organize  different  elements  of  on-­line  
and  traditional  instruction.  Carman  (2002)  identifies  five  such  elements  calling  them  key  “ingredients”  (p.  2):  
•   Live  events.  These  are  synchronous,  instructor-­led  events.  Traditional  lectures,  video  conferences,  and  
synchronous  chat  sessions  such  as  Blackboard  Collaborate,  Adobe  Connect  or  YouTube  are  examples.  
 
•   Self-­Paced  Learning.  Experiences  the  learner  completes  individually  on  her  own  time  such  as  an  Internet  
based  tutorial.  
 
•   Collaboration.  Learners  communicate  and  create  with  others.  E-­mail,  threaded  discussions,  and  wikis  are  
all  examples.  
 
•   Assessment.  Measurements  of  whether  or  to  what  extent  learning  has  taken  place.  Assessment  is  not  
limited  to  conventional  tests,  quizzes,  and  grades.  Narrative  feedback,  portfolio  evaluations  and,  
importantly,  a  designer’s  reflection  about  a  blended  learning  environment’s  effectiveness  or  usefulness  are  
all  forms  of  assessment.  
 
•   Support  Materials.  These  include  reference  materials,  both  physical  and  virtual,  FAQ  forums,  and  
summaries.  Anything  that  aids  learning  retention  and  transfer.  

Blended  Learning  Design  as  an  Emergent  Process  

Can  you  make  patterns  from  clouds?  
“Part  of  the  plan  is  knowing  that  the  situation  will  compel  you  to  change  your  plan”.  –  Vella  (2006)  
A  course  plan  can  take  on  a  variety  of  shapes,  and  is  always  informed  by  context:  the  audience,  the  venue,  and  
the  resources  you  have  available  to  you.    It  is  also  informed  by  the  educational  values,  beliefs,  and  philosophies  of  
the  design  team.  With  so  many  possibilities  and  unknowns,  how  can  we  work  towards  a  common  language  of  
what  planning  is  all  about?  
The  most  basic  question  to  begin  with  is,  why  design  an  online  course.  The  emphasis  here  can  be  on  the  
word  why,  or  on  the  word  design.  A  very  common  response  to  the  question  why  is  that  learners  will  be  
geographically  distributed,  and  having  a  course  online  is  an  obvious  solution.  However,  an  online  course,  or  a  
course  enhanced  with  online  resources  and  communication  tools,  will  add  educational  value  to  any  face-­to-­face  
course  by  making  resources  available  to  learners  and  by  providing  opportunities  to  deepen  learning  through  
dialogue  and  sharing.  In  this  sense  the  divisions  between  online  courses  and  campus-­based  courses  are  
becoming  hazy.  So  the  question  of  why  is  shifting  from  technology  as  a  means  to  change  the  delivery  method  to  
technology  as  a  means  to  enhance  learning.  
 
A  more  philosophical  but  very  practical  question  emphasizes  the  word  design.  Is  it  important  to  create  a  structure  
in  a  virtual  environment?  How  much  design  work  should  be  done  before  involving  the  learners  in  the  curriculum  
process?  These  questions  have  challenged  educators  for  some  time,  and  they  seem  especially  complex  when  
applied  to  designing  online  courses.  Where  then  do  we  turn  for  guidance?  
 
Some  would  argue  that  instructional  design  literature  does  little  to  guide  the  process  of  planning  online  courses  
because  there  is  insufficient  consideration  for  the  social  context  of  learning  (Le  Blanc,  2003).  Furthermore,  the  
recent  advances  in  technologies  to  support  networked  learning,  or  more  informal  connections  among  people  and  
information,  are  challenging  our  notions  about  advance  planning  and  fixed  design  of  online  spaces.  [For  
interesting  discussions  and  resources  related  to  networked  learning  see  the  work  of  Leigh  
Blackall  http://www.leighblackall.blogspot.com]  Consider  this  description  by  George  Siemens:  
 
 By  recognizing  learning  as  a  messy,  nebulous,  informal,  chaotic  process,  we  need  to  rethink  how  we  
design  our  instruction.  
Instruction  is  currently  largely  housed  in  courses  and  other  artificial  constructs  of  information  organization  
and  presentation.  Leaving  this  theory  behind  and  moving  towards  a  networked  model  requires  that  we  
place  less  emphasis  on  our  tasks  of  presenting  information,  and  more  emphasis  on  building  the  learner’s  
ability  to  navigate  the  information—or  connectivism.  
Blogs,  wikis,  and  other  open,  collaborative  platforms  are  reshaping  learning  as  a  two-­way  process.  Instead  
of  presenting  content/information/knowledge  in  a  linear  sequential  manner,  learners  can  be  provided  with  
a  rich  array  of  tools  and  information  sources  to  use  in  creating  their  own  learning  pathways.  The  instructor  
or  institution  can  still  ensure  that  critical  learning  elements  are  achieved  by  focusing  instead  on  the  
creation  of  the  knowledge  ecology.  The  links  and  connections  are  formed  by  the  learners  themselves.  
(Siemens,2002)  
The  best  plan  will  anticipate  learner  experiences,  but  provide  plenty  of  opportunities  for  learner-­defined  goals  and  
assessments.  In  broad  terms,  this  would  be  called  design  for  flexible  learning.  However,  in  practice,  a  systems  
and  linear  approach  is  often  favoured  because  it  ensures  consistency  and  is  more  easily  administered  and  
supported  at  the  organizational    level.    By  planning    out  each  module  carefully  in  terms  of  instructional  goals,  
content,  assignments,  and  assessments,  each  course  can  undergo  rigorous  quality  control.  
Flexible  and  systems  approaches  represent  opposite  ends  of  the  course  planning  spectrum,  one  more  learner-­
centred  (or  more  favourably  referred  to  by  Jane  Vella  (2001)  as    learning-­centred  ),  and  the  other  more  teacher-­
centred.  With  each  approach  there  are  obvious  considerations  for  your  own  context.  While  a  systems  approach  
may  require  substantial  resources,  it  may  be  more  effective  for  managing  quality  control  and  for  preparing  and  
supporting  instructors.  Brent  Wilson  (1995),  a  pioneer  in  e-­learning,  has  been  cautioning  online  course  designers  
about  the    downside  of  a  systems  approach  for  the  past  decade:  An  environment  that  is  good  for  learning  cannot  
be  fully  prepackaged  and  defined  A  more    flexible  approach  will  open  the  doors  to  more  possibilities  based  on  
learner  goals  and  needs.  However,  as  pointed  out  by  Bates  and  Poole  (2003),  “a  flexible  approach  requires  a  high  
level  of  skill  to  be  effective”.  
So  to  revisit  the  central  question:  Can  we  work  towards  a  common  language  of  what  planning  is  all  about?  What  
are  the  patterns  in  the  clouds?  
There  are  many  helpful  models  to  guide  the  design  process,  each  informed  by  learning  theory  and  each  providing  
a  set  of  actions  by  phase  (often  overlapping)  in  the  design  process.  There  are  too  many  to  expand  on  in  this  short  
chapter—an  Internet  search  on  “instructional  design  models”  will  yield  a  dozen  or  more.  
[See    http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html    for  a  comprehensive  list.]  
A  model  is  useful  for  providing  a  framework  for  managing  course  design  and  ensuring  that  all  decisions  are  
attended  to.  Furthermore,  a  good  model  is  cyclical  so  that  evaluation  and  reflection  on  implementation  will  always  
inform  the  next  iteration  of  the  course  design.  Keep  in  mind  that  while  learning  theory  and  prescriptive  models  help  
to  guide  the  work,  a  model  “should  be  used  only  to  the  extent  that  it  is  manageable  for  the  particular  situation  or  
task”.  In  other  words,  context  is  always  at  the  core  of  the  planning  and  design  process.  
Prepare  by  considering  these  four  tips:  
•   Begin  with  relevant  metaphors  for  learning.  Often  the  language  commonly  used  to  describe  e-­learning  
dismisses  the  notion  that  learning  with  technology  is  a  valuable  experience  in  its  own  right.  When  we  
speak  about  “distance  learning”,  “covering  course  content”,  and  “delivering    courses”  we  are  imposing  an  
intent  and  framework  for  learning  that  calls  for  little  involvement  from  the  learner.  
 
•   The  focus  should  be  first  on  the  learning,  and  second  on  the  technologies  that  will  support  that  learning.  
Think  of  your  primary  role  in  the  planning  process  as  keeping  learning,  and  not  technology,  at  the  centre  of  
the  design  process.  Plan  to  include  team  members  in  the  design  process  who  can  provide  the  expertise  
required  to  carry  out  your  plan  and  also  take  full  advantage  of  the  medium.  
 
•   Creating  good  online  learning  experiences  requires  effort.  While  the  basic  planning  guidelines  are  the  
same  for  both  face-­to-­face  and  online  courses,  “the  process  of  planning  a  quality  e-­learning  experience  is  
very  likely  to  be  more  complex  and  time-­consuming  than  planning  a  conventional  classroom  experience.  
(Anderson  &  Elloumi,  2004)  
 
•   Context  is  king!  You  can  choose  an  instructional  model  that  suits  your  project  and  personal  beliefs  about  
teaching  and  learning,  but  always  be  prepared  to  adapt.  
Two  Case  Studies  of  Blended  Learning  Design  
Perhaps  it  will  be  helpful  at  this  point  to  consider  how  blended  learning  design  principles  are  implemented  in  
practice.  It  can  be  quite  difficult  to  portray  effectively  the  interplay  between  the  various  components  of  a  well-­
integrated  blended  course.  Such  portrayals  are  not  easy  to  come  by.    (Sometimes  project  summaries  such  as  
the  Course  Redesign  Exemplars  maintained  by  the  National  Center  for  Academic  Transformation  are  as  close  as  
one  can  come.)  Following  are  two  case  studies  that  are  quite  different  in  style,  scope,  and  in  subject  matter/class  
size  of  the  blended  courses  described.  Even  though  these  case  studies  date  back  to  2004,  we  feel  they  are  still  
relevant  today!  What  patterns  do  you  see?  

Blended  Learning  Case  Study  1:  Broad  Conceptualization  

McCracken  and  Dobson  (2004)  provide  an  example  of  how  learning  purpose,  context,  and  blended  learning  
ingredients  lead  particular  learning  methods.  They  propose  a  process  with  “five  main  design  activities”  (p.491)  as  
a  framework  for  designing  blended  learning  courses.  The  process  is  illustrated  with  a  case  study  of  the  redesign  of  
a  class  at  The  University  of  Alberta  called  Philosophy  101  (pp.  494  –  495):  
•   Identifying  learning  and  teaching  principles.  The  teaching  and  learning  goals  were  described  as  
requiring  active  participation,  sustained  discussion,  and,  most  importantly,  inquiry  and  critical  analysis.  
•   Describing  organizational  contexts  Team  teaching  with  three  professors  and  up  to  eleven  graduate  
teaching  assistants  to  engage  a  class  of  250  students  in  dialogue  around  ethical  and  political  philosophy.  
•   Describing  discipline-­specific  factors  The  designers  are  described  as  being  concerned  about  
stereotypes  of  philosophy  as  “bearded  men  professing  absolute  truths”  (p.495).  The  desire  was  to  
represent  philosophy  as  an  activity,  not  a  set  truths  to  be  absorbed.  
•   Selecting  and  situating  appropriate  learning  technologies  Learning  activities  focused  on  the  process  
of  engagement:  presenting  and  defending  a  thesis  and  responding  to  opposing  views.  For  example,  a  
face-­to-­face  lecture  would  feature  contemporary  ethical  dilemmas  with  newspaper  headlines  or  a  video  
clip.  Or,  the  instructors  would  stage  a  debate  in  which  they  would  assume  the  role  of  a  philosopher  under  
study  and  then  argue  from  the  philosopher’s  point  of  view.  Online  threaded  discussion  supplemented  small  
group  seminar  sections.  
•   Articulating  the  complementary  interaction  between  classroom  and  online  learning  activities  In  the  
Philosophy  101  example,  it  was  noted  how  the  face-­to-­face  engagement  was  complemented  by  more  
deliberative,  asynchronous  discourse.  
Even  this  simplified  description  illustrates  the  multilayered,  multifaceted  nature  of  blended  learning  environments.  
With  such  a  large  canvass,  the  most  important  design  principle  might  be  to  start  small.  “Creating  a  blended  
learning  strategy  is  an  evolutionary  process.”  (Singh  and  Reed,  2001).  

Blended  Learning  Case  Study  2:  Detailed  Personal  Reflection  

A story of blended instruction

Typically  described  as  an  instructional  strategy  that  incorporates  the  best  of  face-­to-­face  learning  and  online  
content  and  discussion  groups,  blended  instruction  often  meets  with  mixed  success.  A  key  challenge  to  designing  
blended  learning  strategies  is  to  sort  out  what  content  is  best  suited  to  which  format—online  or  face-­to-­face.  If  that  
decision  is  not  well  considered  at  the  design  level,  the  workload  for  both  the  teacher  and  students  may  seem  
overwhelming,  and  the  learning  experience  may  be  inconsistent  with  the  curricular  goals.  
In  blended  learning,  typically  the  face-­to-­face  component  is  supported  by  supplementary  online  content.  This  is  
usually  contained  within  an  LMS,  often  with  asynchronous  discussion  groups  and  synchronous  sessions,  and  it  
may  take  the  form  of  blogs,  podcasts  and  multimedia  simulations.  Conversely,  a  blended  course  might  exist  
primarily  online,  with  a  few  face-­to-­face  meetings  for  more  experiential  learning  opportunities  such  as  labs,  visits  
to  specific  sites,  or  face-­to-­face  orientation  sessions  so  students  can  meet  each  other  and  the  instructor.  
In  winter  of  2004  I  [Susan  Crichton]  had  the    opportunity  to  design  a  campus-­based  course  for  pre-­service  
teachers.  It  was  entitled  Distributed  Learning:    Teaching  and  Learning  Online.  The  desire  to  build  and  teach  this  
course  came  directly  from  my  personal  experience  as  a  K–12  online  educator,  as  well  as  my  research  into  the  
practices  of  K–  12  online  teachers.  I  felt  the  course  had  to  model  excellent  practice  and  leverage  emerging  
technologies,  as  it  would  introduce  blended  and  online  learning  to  preservice  teachers.  
The  course,  an  elective,  met  on  Friday  mornings  for  three  hours,  and  it  was  assumed  that  students  would  work  an  
additional  three  hours  per  week  independently.  Further,  all  similar  electives  within  the  program,  required  students  
to  complete  an  inquiry  paper  based  on  action  research.  
Before  the  semester  started,  I  met  with  the  students  and  determined  that  none  of  them  had  taken  an  online  course  
before.  The  majority  had  very  limited  technology  skills  and  were  actually  enrolled  in  the  course  to  gain  them.  
Therefore,  I  started  the  design  of  the  course  by  considering  the  amount  of  time  available  (13  weeks)  and  listing  
the  learning  experiences  that  I  wanted  the  students  to  have;;  I  then  organized  the  content  to  fit  those  constraints.  I  
sorted  the  content  into  experiences  that  I  felt  were  best  shared,  either  face-­to-­face  during  the  Friday  sessions  or  
online  during  the  expected  independent  study  time.  Further,  I  modified  the  inquiry  paper  to  include  the  
development  of  a  student-­negotiated  learning  object.  
I  planned  for  the  final  face-­to-­face  class  to  be  a  celebration  of  learning  where  the  students  could  share  their  
learning  objects  and  talk  about  their  successes  and  challenges.  Therefore,  I  was  left  with  11  sessions  to  present  
content,  develop  technology  skills,  and  model  more  student-­centred  approaches  to  learning.  
Assuming  the  first  session  and  the  last  were  orientation,  introduction  and  celebration,  respectively,  I  distributed  
specific  content  to  each  of  the  other  11  sessions,  covering  topics  such  as  roles  and  responsibilities  for  online  
educators,  content  development,    issues    of    pedagogy  and  assessment,  characteristics  of  asynchronous  and  
synchronous  learning,  global  issues—digital  divide,  employment  opportunities,  and  universal  design.  Paralleling  
each  topic  were  weekly  online  content  structured  within  the  LMS  and  opportunities  for  students  to  practise  
moderating  the  discussion  forum.  The  face-­to-­face  sessions  became  workshop  opportunities,  with  matching  
software  complementing  the    various  topics.  For  example,  the  week  on  content  development  was  supported  by  
concept  mapping  using  Inspiration  software  for  storyboarding  and  an  introductory,  hands-­on  session  in  digital  
filmmaking.  
The  most  critical  design  decision  on  my  part  was  where  on  the  continuum  (Figure  31.3)  I  should  start.  As  our  
program  is  inquiry-­based,  I  felt  it  would  have  been  inappropriate  to  start  with  online  instruction  only.  Further,  
because  there  was  an  existing  face-­to-­face  expectation,  the  facilitated  online  instruction  model  would  not  work  
either.  The  choice  rested  with  a  blended  approach  or  a  studio-­based  approach,  and  I  chose  blended,  designing  
the  face-­to-­face  sessions  as  a  studio-­based  model  in  terms  of  the  hands-­on  learning  and  open  critiques  of  the  
products  and  process.  
 
 

Continuum   Online   Facilitated  Online   Studio-­based  

Type   Instruction   Instruction   Blended  Instruction   Instruction  
Teacher-­prepared  
contentTeacher-­ Teacher-­prepared  
directed   learning  
Teacher-­prepared   Teacher-­prepared   instructionIncreased   environment  and  
contentTeacher-­ contentTeacher-­ interaction  among   initial  problems  /  
directed   directed   teacher  and   taskStudent-­centred  
instructionTeacher   instructionInteraction   studentsOpportunity   approachActive  
has  minimal  or  no   between  teacher   for  student-­negotiated   interaction  between  
direct  involvement   and  studentsNeed   tasksNeed  for  both  to   students  /  
with  studentsNeed   for  both  to  participate   participate   teachersChanged  
Role  of  teacher  /   for  students  to   face-­to-­face  and   face-­to-­face  and   role  for  teacher  and  
student   participate  online   online   online   student  
Asynchronous  
Asynchronous   Synchronous   learning  with  
teaching  /   Synchronous   teaching  /   synchronous  support  
learningLearning   teaching  /  learning   learningIncreased   Collaboration  
controlled  by   optionsAsynchronous   opportunities  for   Online  gallery  with  
time—   optionsCollaborative   asynchronous   forum  for  
fixed  start  /  stop   optionsLearning   learningOpportunity   crits  
Online  Approach   time   controlled  by  teacher   for  face-­to-­face   Learning  negotiated  
 CollaborationLearning   by  teacher  
controlled  by  teacher   /  student  
Content  managed  
in  learning  
management   Content  in  LMS,  
system  (LMS)   support  via   Collaborative  
such  as   email  or  synchronous   software  (e.g.,  
Blackboard,  D2L,   software   Online  discussions,   CMAP,  shared  
Moodle,  WebCT;;   (e.g.,  Elluminate   LMS,  synchronous   whiteboards);;  
assessment   Live,  MSN   conferencingPhysical   simulations,  VR,  
Example  of   via  computer-­ Messenger);;  online   classroom/lab   LMS,  synchronous  
software   marked  quizzes   discussions   environment   conferencing  
Lecture  /   Lecture,  discussion,  
Instructional   information   Lecture,  discussion,   task  negotiation,  
strategy   transfer   Lecture,  discussion   task  negotiation   problem-­solving  
Formal  testing  /  
teacher  
Testing  /   marked,  potential  for   Authentic  
computer  marked   alternative,  more   assessment  using  
(true  or  false,   Formal  testing  /   open-­ended   checklists  /  rubrics  
multiple  choice,   teacher   assessment  (essay,   for  project  
Evaluation   short  answer   marked   project,  etc.)   assessment  
Potential  for  all  
Knowledge  level   levels,  including  the  
Knowledge   Comprehension  level   higher-­order  thinking  
Link  to  Bloom’s   levelComprehension   Application  level   tasks  of  synthesis  
Taxonomy   Knowledge  level   level   Analysis  level   and  evaluation  
Potential  for  all  
media  to  be  
usedUse  media  to  
dramatize  personal  
experiencesUse  
Text  to  readAudio   media  as  a  starting  
files  (podcasts  to   point  
Text  to  readAudio   hear)Images  to   for  personalized  
files  (podcasts  to   watchExhibits  to   learning  and  
Text  to  readAudio   hear)Images  to   exploreSimulations  to   individual  
files  (podcasts  to   watchExhibits  to   engage   demonstration  of  
hear)Images  to   exploreSimulations  to   withDemonstrations   understandingCreate  
Role  of  Media   watch   engage  with   to  discuss   own  media  

Figure  31.3.  Continuum  of  Instructional  Practice  Typically  Found  in  Online  and  Blended  Learning  
This  course  has  been  offered  each  year  since  its  introduction  in  2004,  and  students  have  been  hired  directly  from  
the  course  for  jobs  in  online  teaching  for  the  local  school  board.  Each  year,  the  course  content  has  changed  as  
new  technology  emerges.    In  the  last  offering,  I  included  podcasting,  wikis,  and  blogs,  and  I  am  still  exploring  
options  for  the  upcoming  course.  The  course  has  exceeded  my  expectations,  and  the  evaluations  have  been  
excellent.  
During  the  first  offering,  a  graduate  student  (Shervey,2005)  researched  this  course  for  her  thesis.  The  study  was  
positive  and  reaffirming,  as  it  revealed  that  the  students’  perceptions  of  promise  and  potential  of  online  learning  
changed  as  they  experienced  them  firsthand.  
Blended  learning  worked  well  for  the  Distributed  Learning  course.    For  example,  it  allowed  me  to  share  
asynchronous  technologies  during  the  sessions  on  asynchronous    and  synchronous  learning.  Rather  than  attend  
class,  I  encouraged  the  students  to  connect  from  home  during  the  Friday  class,  letting  them  experience  what  it  felt  
like  to  be  learning  along  from  home.    One  of  the  most  successful  sessions  was  the  discussion  of  employment.  I  
invited  colleagues  who  work  in  various  online  professions  to  join  the  discussion  forum.  I  created  a  forum  topic  for  
each  of  them,  introducing  them  to  the  course  and  explaining  to  the  students  how  I  knew  them  or  had  worked  with  
them,  thereby  personalizing  these  potentially  anonymous  guests.  Each  guest  then  posted  a  description  of  their  
work  and  invited  the  students  to  ask  questions.  And  question  they  did,  asking  everything  from  who  are  you,  to  how  
much  do  you  make,  and  are  you  lonely  sitting  at  home.  
Over  the  three  offerings  of  this  course,  I  have  done  little  to  change  the  structure  or  my  instructional  strategies,  
which  appear  to  be  working  well,  but  the  design  is  flexible  enough  to  allow  me  to  change  the  content  as  new  
things  emerge.  I  cannot  imagine  offering  this  course  in  anything  other  than  a  blended  approach,  as  I  have  learned  
that  our  face-­to-­face  time  is  as  important  as  our  online  time.  

Conclusion  
In  this  chapter  we  considered  the  place  of  blended  learning  in  higher  education,  and  we  began  to  grapple  with  
some  of  the  design  issues  associated  with  such  courses.  We  explored  design  as  a  more  mechanistic,  controlled  
process,  and  we  contemplated  how  design  of  blended  courses  can  be  undertaken  as  a  more  emergent  pursuit.  
Perhaps  we  can  see  something  of  the  “loosely  articulated  design  process”  identified  by  McGee  and  Reis  (2012,  
p.17)  in  their  study  of  blended  learning  best  practices.  As  we  turn  our  attention  to  interaction  in  the  next  chapter,  
we  should  continue  to  keep  the  design  process  in  mind.  
References  
Anderson,  T.  &  Elloumi,  F.  (2004).  Theory  and  practice  of  online  learning.  Athabasca:  Athabasca  University.  
Bates,  A.  W.  &  Poole,  G.  (2003).  Effective  teaching  with  technology  in  higher  education:  Foundations  for  success.  
San  Francisco:  Jossey-­Bass.  
Carman,  J.M.  (October,  2002).  Blended  learning  design:  five  key  elements.  Agilant  Learning.  Retrieved  
from  http://www.agilantlearning.com/pdf/Blended%20Learning%20Design.pdf  
 
Drysdale,  J.S.,  Graham,  C.R.,  Spring,  K.J.,  and  Halverson,  L.R.  (2013).  An  analysis  of  research  trends  in  
dissertations  and  theses  studying  blended  learning.  The  Internet  and  Higher  Education,  17,  90-­
100.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.003  
 
Dziuban,  C.  D.,  Picciano,  A.  G.,  Graham,  C.  R.,  &  Moskal,  P.  D.  (2016).  Conducting  research  in  online  and  
blended  learning  environments:  New  pedagogical  frontiers.  New  York:  
Routledge.  https://www.amazon.com/Conducting-­Research-­Blended-­Learning-­Environments-­
ebook/dp/B012FWHXZ0  
Graham,  C.R.,  Henrie,  C.R.,  and  Gibbons,  A.S.  (2014).  Developing  models  and  theories  for  blended  learning  
research,  In  A.  Picciano,  C.  Dziuban,  and  C.  Graham  (Eds.),  Blended  learning:  Research  perspectives,  volume  2.  
NY:  Routledge.  
Kaleta,  R.,  Garnham,  C.,  and  Aycock,  A.  (2005).  Hybrid  courses:  Obstacles  and  solutions  for  faculty  and  students.  
Proceedings  from  19th  Annual  Conference  on  Distance  Teaching  and  Learning,  Madison,  WI.  Retrieved  
from  http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/03_72.pdf  
Le  Blanc,  D.  (2003).    Instructional  design  for  distributed  collaborative  learning  environments  based  on  
sociocultural  constructivist  theories  (Unpublished  manuscript):  Simon  Fraser  University.  
McCracken,  J.  &  Dobson,  M.  (2004).  Blended  learning  design.  In  V.  Uskov  (Ed.),  Proceeding  of  the  Seventh  
IASTED  International  Conference:  Computers  and  Advanced  Technology  in  Education  –  2004  (pp.  491-­496).  
Calgary:  ACTA  Press.  
McGee,  P.  &  Reis,  A.  (2012).  Blended  course  design:  A  synthesis  of  best  practices.  Journal  of  Asynchronous  
Learning  Networks,  16(4).  Retrieved  
from  http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/sites/default/files/jaln_v16n4_1_Blended_Course_Design_A_Synthesis_o
f_Best_Practices.pdf  
Picciano,  A.  and  Dziuban,  C.  (2007).  Blended  learning:  Research  perspectives.  Needham,  MA:  Sloan  Consortium  
of  Colleges  and  Universities.  
Picciano,  A.,  Dziuban,  C.  and  Graham,  C.  (2014).  Blended  learning:  Research  perspectives,  volume  2.  NY:  
Routledge.  
Shervey,  M.  (2005).    The  impact  of  online  teaching  and  learning  on  pre-­service  teachers.  Unpublished  master’s  
thesis,  University  of  Calgary,  Calgary.  Alberta,  Canada.  
Siemens,  G.  (2002,  September  30,  2002).    Instructional  Design  in  Elearning.  Retrieved  
from  http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm  
 
Singh,  H.  &  Reed,  C.  (2001).  A  white  paper:  achieving  success  with  blended  learning.  Centra  Software.  Retrieved  
from  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.821&rep=rep1&type=pdf  
Thorne,  K.  (2003).  Blended  learning:  How  to  integrate  online  &  traditional  learning.  VA:  London  and  Sterling.  
Troha,  F.  (2002).  Bulletproof  instructional  Design:  A  model  for  blended  learning.  USDLA  Journal,  16(5).  
Troha,  F.  (2003).  Bulletproof  Blended  Learning  Design:  Process,  Principles,  and  Tips.  1st  Books  Library.  
U.S.  Department  of  Education.  (2010).  Evaluation  of  Evidence-­Based  Practices  in  Online  Learning:  A  Meta-­
Analysis  and  Review  of  Online  Learning  Studies,  Washington,  D.C.  Retrieved  
from  http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-­based-­practices/finalreport.pdf  
Vella,  J.  (2001).  Taking  learning  to  task:  Creative  strategies  for  teaching  adults.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­Bass.  
Vella,  J.  (2006).    Dialogue  Education:  What  are  the  basics?  Presented  at  Dialogue  in  Teaching  and  Learning:  An  
Educational  Framework  for  Linking  Coursework  and  Community.  Simon  Fraser  University,  Burnaby,  British  
Columbia.  
Wilson,  B.  G.  (1995).  Metaphors  for  instruction:  Why  we  talk  about  learning  environments.    Educational  
Technology,  pp.  25–30.