Login or register for free to remove ads.
You are here:

Finding a Balance in Dimensions of Blended Learning Article

, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Netherlands ; , VSO Nederland, Netherlands ; , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands ; , Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

International Journal on E-Learning Volume 7, Number 3, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

This article is a formative evaluation of a course in which a blended learning environment was created and a good balance in dimensions of blended learning was sought. Blended learning is defined as the total mix of pedagogical methods, using a combination of different learning strategies, both with and without the use of technology. The evaluation is based on a model of blended learning that has four dimensions: structured/unstructured, individual/group, face-to-face/at-a-distance, and self/teacher directed. These dimensions are used for the evaluation of a module entitled Society and Technology that is taught at Delft University of Technology. We describe how the module evolved in terms of these four dimensions of blended learning. We then use this case as the basis for a discussion about an effective balance in blended learning and further research in this field.

Citation

Verkroost, M.J., Meijerink, L., Lintsen, H. & Veen, W. (2008). Finding a Balance in Dimensions of Blended Learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 499-522. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved October 18, 2017 from .

Keywords

References

  1. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32,347-364. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  2. Clark, D. (2003). Blended learning. An Epic white paper. Brighton, UK: Epic Group. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.epic.co.uk/content/resources/white_papers/Epic_Whtp_blended.pdf Collis, B., & Wende, M. Van der (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education. An international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher education. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.utwente.nl/cheps/documenten/ictrapport.pdf Dahlgren, L.O. (1984). Outcomes of learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds), The experience of learning (P.19-35). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press. Dijkstra, S. (2001). The design space for solving instructional design problems. Instructional Science, 29, 275-290.
  3. Driscoll, M. (2002, March 1). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. LTI Newsline. Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.
  4. Gay, G., Trumbull, D., & Smith, J. (1988). Perceptions of control and use of control options in computer-assisted video instruction. TechTrends, 33(5), 31-33.
  5. Harrison, M. (2003). Blended learning II. Blended learning in practice. An Epic White Paper. Brighton, UK: Epic Group. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.epic.co.uk/content/resources/white_papers/Epic_Whtp_blended_practice_180703.pdf
  6. Itzkan, S.J. (1994) Policy and leadership. Assessing the future of telecomputing environments: Implications for instruction and administration. Computing Teacher, 22(4), 60-64. Jochems, W., Merrienboer, J. Van, & Koper, R. (2004). An introduction to integrated e-learning. In W. Jochems, J. Van Merrienboer, R. Koper (Eds.), Integrated e-learning. Implications for pedagogy, technology and organization. London: Routledge Falmer.
  7. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Scott, L. (1978). The effects of cooperative and individual instruction on student attitudes and achievement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 207-216.
  8. Jonassen, D. (1990). Thinking technology: Towards a constructivist view of instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(9), 32-34.
  9. Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1991). Developmental instruction: An analysis of the research. Boone, NC: Appalachian State University: National Center for Developmental Education.
  10. Ley, K., & Young, D.B. (2001). Instructional principles for self-regulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 93-103.
  11. Margaryan, A., & Bianco, M. (2002). An analysis of blended learning. Benchmarking Study, Shell Open University, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
  12. McNeil, B.J., & Nelson, K.R. (1991). Meta-analysis of interactive video instruction: A 10-year review of achievement effects. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(1), 1-6. Merrill, D.
  13. Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can blended learning be redeemed? E-learning, 2(1), 17-26. Retr ieved Apr i l 20, 2008,
  14. Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative vs cooperative learning. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.city.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collab.learning/panitz2.html
  15. Posner, G.J., & Strike, K.A. (1976). A categorization scheme for principles of sequencing content. Review of Educational Research, 46, 655-690.
  16. Reigeluth, C.M. (1987). Lesson blueprints based on the elaboration theory of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models (pp. 245-288). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  17. Riffell, S., & Sibley, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: An evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers & Education, 44, 217-235. Salomonson, Y., & Lantz, J. (2005). Factors influencing nursing students’ preference for a hybrid format delivery in a pathophysiology course. Nurse Education Today, 25, 9-16. Schroeder, U.
  18. Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Centra Software. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.centra.com/download/whitepapers/blendedlearning.pdf
  19. Slavin, R.E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71-82.
  20. Song, L., Singleton, E.S., Hill, J.R., & Hwo Koh, M. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 59-70. Steinberg, E.R. (1977). Review of student control of learning in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3(3), 84-90.
  21. Steinberg, E.R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977-88. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117-121.
  22. Tateyama-Sniezek, K.M. (1990). Cooperative learning: Does it improve the academic achievement of students with handicaps? Exceptional Children, 56(5), 426-437.
  23. Tingle, J.B., & Good, R. (1990). Effects of cooperative grouping on stoichemetric problem solving in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Training, 27(5), 671-683. Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning. How to integrate online & Traditional learning. London and Sterling, VA: Kogan Page.
  24. Troha, F.J. (2002). Bulletproof for blended learning. USDLA
  25. Troha, F. (2003). Bulletproof blended learning design: Process, principles and tips. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse.
  26. Tuckman, B.W. (2002). Evaluating ADAPT: A hybrid instructional model combining web-based and classroom components. Computers & Education, 39, 261-269. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://dennislearningcenter.osu.edu/references/evaluating_ADAPT.htm
  27. Veen, W. (2003). A new force for change: Homo Zappiens. The Learning Citizen, 7, 5-7. Vonderwell, S.
  28. Westen, C., Gandell, T., McAlpine, L., & Finkelstein, A. (1999). Designing instruction for the context of online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(1), 35-44.
  29. Woods, R.H. (2002). How much communication is enough in online courses? Exploring the relationship between frequency of instructor-initiated personal email and learners’ perception of and participation in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 377-394.
  30. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research. Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Applied Social Research Methods Series, 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  31. Young, J.R. (2002). “Hybrid” teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Information Technology, 48(28), A33-34. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.
  32. Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51-59.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.