Introduction to blended learning

Blended learning courses allow you to leverage the best aspects of face-to-face and out-of-class learning. One of the main advantages of blended learning is that it offers more flexibility for instructors to define the frequency and format of the learning activities based on the course objectives. This format allows for models other than the typical structure of 2.5 hours weekly during 12 weeks. For example, a blended format can be a viable option for courses that are project-based or rooted in experiential learning.

For example, a lecture that students are expected to follow and take notes may be better suited for online work, while a lecture punctuated with knowledge checks and other activities to generate discussion or solicit student feedback on the spot would be more appropriate in person. The modality you choose for any class activity should align with your learning goals for the students.

Comparing blended learning with regular in-person classes

In-person classes can still benefit from online activities outside of class, such as discussion forums, readings, videos, and other activities to support learning as part of the usual course activities. However, adding online asynchronous components to a course does not, by definition, make it “blended”—it could be an in-person course enhanced by technology.

For example, some instructors may use a flipped classroom approach where students watch lectures or do readings before class. As long as this coursework does not exceed the typical course load, it can remain in-person without reducing the contact hours.

However, if the coursework assigned outside of class exceeds the usual course workloads, there may be a need to reduce the class time. For example, suppose students must watch lecture videos, do readings before class, and complete follow-up activities after class. In that case, you might consider reducing the number of in-person hours to make up for the additional work. Other courses may require periods of more intense work or activities outside of class. For example, if students are engaged in project work or other experiential activities that replace class time by more than 25%, then this would also fall under the designation of a blended course. To sum up, not every course integrating technology is blended; instead, blended indicates that a significant portion of class work occurs outside class.

A blended delivery format also flexibly allows instructors to define the frequency and format of the learning activities based on the course objectives. This format provides models other than the 2.5 hours per week for the 12-week structure that most courses abide by. For example, a blended format can be a viable option for courses that are project-based or rooted in experiential learning.

Comparing blended learning with the flipped classroom

A flipped classroom is a pedagogical model that is usually a face-to-face class (without reducing class hours) where the traditional teaching model has been “flipped.” That is, the presentation of content (lectures, readings, etc.) occurs before class, and the class time includes problem-solving and other group learning activities, typically done as homework in traditional teaching.

Blended learning refers to a delivery format, not a pedagogical model. The defining characteristic of blended learning is a reduction in face-to-face hours supplemented with intentionally designed out-of-class learning activities.

The flexibility of the blended delivery format allows for the flipped classroom pedagogical model to be included. Still, not all flipped classes use a blended format, nor do all blended courses use the flipped pedagogical approach. The flipped classroom could be a viable pedagogical model for your blended course, depending on how often your class meets.

Resources on the flipped classroom

• Review this resource for an overview of the steps to flipping your course.
• Watch this short video about a flipped approach.

Benefits of blended courses

Here are some benefits of the out-of-class component of blended learning courses.

Increased social interaction

Because of the flexibility of blended courses, instructors can assign projects and assignments where students interact with their community. Instead of using class time to attend lectures or do traditional coursework, students could work with community partners, do field trips, or do other projects where students interact with different audiences.

Coursework on Moodle can facilitate richer social interactions through online discussions and collaborative assignments. Online discussions can potentially increase the number of faculty-student and student-student interactions, which may not be possible due to limited in-class time, classroom configuration, etc.

Increased achievement through blended learning

Bernard et al. (2014) found that blended learning outperforms face-to-face classroom instruction and fully online instruction. On average, groups of students receiving blended instruction emphasizing peer-to-peer interaction outperform face-to-face classrooms on achievement by roughly 10-14%.

Further support evidence for this increased achievement is found in a meta-analysis by Yong Zhao et al. (2005); however, they discovered that undergraduate-level courses were more effective than classroom instruction by +14.1%, whereas graduate-level blended courses were marginally more effective than classroom instruction by +1.2%. Effectiveness indicators include grades, student satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, dropout rate, standardized tests, and cost-effectiveness.

Increased flexibility in the design of teaching

Because digital technologies partially free instructors from the confines of the weekly three-hour lecture, instructors can better design their course to integrate various learning activities and projects with an appropriate pace and varying sequences around the needs of students and, in some instances, let students set the pace themselves.

More equitable access to course materials

Most blended courses use Moodle to manage course activities and post course materials. This electronic format makes these resources and materials accessible to students anytime from any computer or mobile device. Students may use it in conjunction with screen-reading software if needed.

Increased student engagement and autonomy

A growing body of research shows that students appreciate having access to lecture recordings and use them to improve their learning in various ways:

• Prepare for tests and exams (Brady et al., 2013; Lambert et al., 2019; Saunders and Hutt, 2015; Traphagan et al., 2009),
• Review complex material and review material they missed during the live lecture (Gorissen et al., 2012; Groen et al., 2016; Leadbeater et al., 2013,
• Improve the detail and clarity of their notes (Elliott and Neal, 2016; Gosper et al., 2010; Leadbeater et al., 2013; Newton et al., 2014), and
• Make up for a missed class (Traphagan et al., 2009).

Additional research that supports the use of blended learning

• When technology provides cognitive support (e.g., simulations, serious games), average group achievement increases by +22.2% (Bernard et al., 2014). Cognitive support promotes self-regulation by helping students set goals, make plans, and observe their progress.
• Computer-based technology use in a postsecondary classroom correlated with an average improvement in students’ attitudes by + 8.3%. (Schmid et al, 2014).

Challenges of designing a blended course

Because moving a course to a blended format requires a rethinking of the course structure, it has many of the same challenges you may have with developing a traditional course (i.e., learning outcomes, time demands, access to resources, etc.)

Planning for the blended component also comes with challenges. These include:

• Ensuring an appropriate workload for students.
• Integrating face-to-face and out-of-class activities cohesively.
• Creating clear instructions for out-of-class learning activities.
• Curating quality digital teaching and learning resources.
• Competent use of educational technology tools.
• Rethinking your pedagogical approach—are you ready to change how you teach?

References and resources

Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122.

Brady, M., Wong, R., & Newton, G. (2013). Characterization of catch-up behavior: Accession of lecture capture videos following student absenteeism. Education Sciences, 3(3), 344-358.

Couperthwaite, J, Leadbeater, W., Nightingale, K., Shuttleworth, T. (2012). Evaluating the use and impact of lecture recording in undergraduates: Evidence for distinct approaches by different groups of students. Computers & Education, 61(1), 185-192.

Gorissen, P., van Bruggen, J., & Jochems, W. (2012). Survey on current use and demands for higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 2(3), 297–311.

Elliott C, Neal D. (2016). Evaluating the use of lecture capture using a revealed preference approach. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 153-167.

Gosper, M. McNeill, R. Phillips, G. Preston, K. Woo & D. Green. (2010). Web-based lecture technologies and learning and teaching: a study of change in four Australian universities. Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 251-263.

Groen. J. F., Quigley, B., Herry, Yves. (2016). Examining the use of lecture capture technology: Implications for teaching and learning. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), Article 8.

Leadbeater, W. et al. (2013). Evaluating the use and impact of lecture recording in undergraduates: Evidence for distinct approaches by different groups of students. Computers Education, 61, 185-192.

Linder, K. E. (2017). The blended course design workbook: A practical guide. Sterling, Va: Stylus Publishing.

Newton, G., Tucker, T., Dawson, J., & Currie, E. (2014). Use of lecture capture in higher education – Lessons from the trenches. TechTrends, 58(2), 32-45.

Roose, I., Vantieghem, W., Van Damme, K., Lambert, P., Vanderlinde, R., & Van Avermaet, P. (2019). Measuring teachers’ professional vision of inclusive classrooms through video-based comparative judgement. What does it mean to misfit? International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 257-271.

Saunders, F. C.; Hutt, I. (2015). Enhancing large-class teaching: A systematic comparison of rich-media materials. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(6), 1233-1250.

Schmid, R.F., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P.C., Surkes, M.A., Wade, C.A., Woods, J. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271-291.

Traphagan, T., Kucsera, J. V & Kishi, K., 2009. Impact of class lecture webcasting on attendance and learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(1), 19-37.

Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836-1884.