You are here:

Pedagogical and Design Aspects of a Blended Learning Course ARTICLE

, , , The Open University of Israel

IRRODL Volume 10, Number 2, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press


Based on recent research reports, the blended learning model, which combines face-to-face and online learning, is now the preferred model for online course design. Its superiority over online learning, which lacks face-to-face interaction, is evident from studies that examined both student achievement and satisfaction. Nevertheless, there is ambiguity in the literature and in the field regarding the proper implementation of blended learning and the optimal proportions between online and F2F components in various learning scenarios. The range of contradictory reports in recent literature on the potential of different blended learning models shows the need for more research on specific blended learning courses in order to establish proper standards for effective course design and implementation. The present evaluation study focuses on students’ perceptions of pedagogical and design issues related to a new model for blended learning that was used in a graduate-level course at the Open University of Israel. Fifty-eight of the course’s 91 students participated in the study and completed a questionnaire regarding three major aspects of the course design: (1) pedagogy, (2) textbook format (print vs. digital), and (3) learning environment usability. The results illustrate the importance of completing the pedagogical and visual design of online learning in advance. Also, the course model suggests ways to bridge the gaps between students and instructors and students and their peers, which are typical of online learning in general and open universities in particular.


Precel, K., Eshet-Alkalai, Y. & Alberton, Y. (2009). Pedagogical and Design Aspects of a Blended Learning Course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(2),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved August 19, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Ackerman, R. (2009). The subjective feelings of comprehension and remembering accompanying text-learning on-screen. In Y. Eshet, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, and Y. Yair (Eds), Learning in the Technological Era III: Proceedings of the 2009 Chais Conference (pp 17).
  2. Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality of online education in the United
  3. Armitage U., Wilson, S., & Sharp, H. (2004). Navigation and ownership for learning in electronic texts: An
  4. Bates, A.R. & Khasawneh, S. (2007). Self efficacy and college students’ perception and use of online learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 3(1), 175-191.
  5. Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies and lessons learned. New York, NY: Wiley& Sons Bonk, C.J. (2004a). The perfect e-storm: emerging technology, enormous learner demand, enhanced pedagogy, and erased budgets. Part 1: Storms # 1 and #2. The Observatory on Higher Education, 2004, [On-line]. Http://
  6. Bonk, C.J. & Graham, C.R. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
  7. Bransford, J.D., Sherwood, R.D., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., & Williams, S.M (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In C. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, Education and Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technology in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
  9. Derntl, M. & Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 111-130.
  10. Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106.
  11. Eshet, Y. (2007). Teaching online: survival skills for the effective teacher. Inroads-The SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2), 16-20.
  12. Eshet-Alkalai Y. & Geri, N. (2007). Does the medium affect the message? The influence of text representation format on critical thinking. Human Systems Management, 26(4), 269-279.
  13. Eshet, Y. & Geri, N. (2009). Congruent versus incongruent display: The effect of page layout on critical reading in print and digital formats. In Y. Eshet, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, & Y. Yair (Eds.), Learning in the Technological Era IV: Proceedings of the 2009 Chais Conference, 2 February 2009 (pp. 73-80). Raanana: The Open University of Israel.
  14. Graham, C.R. (2006). Blended learning wystems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C.J. Bonk& C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
  15. Harasim, L. (1999). A framework for online learning: the Virtual-U. Computer, 9, 44-49.
  16. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. (2003). Patterns of Engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71.
  17. Garrison, D.R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
  18. Kurtz, G. & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2008). Psychological well-being and attitudes toward e-learning. In Y. Eshet, Y., A. Caspi, & N. Geri (Eds.), Learning in the Technological Era III: Proceedings of the 2009 Chais Conference (pp. 60-65). Raanana: The Open
  19. Osguthorpe, R.T. & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
  20. Rossett, A., Douglis, F., & Frazee, R.V. (2003). Strategies for building blended learning. Alexandria, VA, USA: ASTD Learning Circuits.
  21. Rovai, A. & Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in
  22. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51-54.
  23. Spencer, C. (2006). Research on learners’ preferences for reading from a printed text or from a computer screen. Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 33-50.
  24. Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional learning. London: Kogan Page.
  25. Stephenson, J. (2001). Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies. London: Routledge.
  26. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.

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

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Thematic Patterns in International Blended Learning Literature, Research, Practices, and Terminology

    Kristian Spring & Charles Graham

    Online Learning Journal Vol. 21, No. 4 (Dec 01, 2017)

  2. Supplementing Face-to-Face with a Learning Management System Courseware: The Case of a Blended Learning Course for a Higher Education Institution in the Philippines

    Rodolfo, Raga & Jennifer Raga, Jose Rizal University, Philippines

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2014 (Oct 27, 2014) pp. 1620–1629

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact