This article was downloaded by: [christiane moises]On: 30 July 2015, At: 17:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Click for updates

Interactive Learning EnvironmentsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

Blended/hybrid courses: a review ofthe literature and recommendations forinstructional designers and educatorsSamuel A. Helmsa

a Center for Teaching and Learning, Regis University, Denver, USAPublished online: 07 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Samuel A. Helms (2014) Blended/hybrid courses: a review of the literature andrecommendations for instructional designers and educators, Interactive Learning Environments,22:6, 804-810, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2012.745420

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745420

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

chri

stia

ne m

oise

s] a

t 17:

00 3

0 Ju

ly 2

015

Blended/hybrid courses: a review of the literature and recommendations

for instructional designers and educators

Samuel A. Helms*

Center for Teaching and Learning, Regis University, Denver, USA

(Received 4 August 2010; final version received 12 March 2012)

This article explores some of the literature on blended/hybrid learning andidentifies recommendations for instructional designers and faculty. Terminologyand definitions are discussed first including the debate between the words‘‘blended’’ and ‘‘hybrid.’’ A working definition for the article is discussed but thearticle does not propose a standard definition for the field. The learningadvantages of using a blended/hybrid format are identified from the literatureincluding improved grades, retention and communication and teamwork. Therecommendations are discussed in four broad categories: (a) face to face andonline scheduling, (b) communication, (c) course content, and (d) otherrecommendations. The article concludes with a call for future research intoblended/hybrid learning and how to best construct blended/hybrid courses froman instructional design standpoint.

Keywords: blended learning; hybrid learning; distance learning; asynchronousdiscussion; synchronous discussion

Introduction

Blended or hybrid courses are a growing trend in higher education as colleges anduniversities see the advantages to mixing online and face to face content (Bleed,2001). It follows that this new format of learning has unique instructional designelements and considerations, just as face to face classes and purely online classeshave unique concerns.

This article aggregates some of the literature on blended learning in an attempt toprovide instructional designers and faculty with practical tools for developing andteaching blended/hybrid courses. Before this can be done, a working term anddefinition need to be established for this article. Then the recommendations of theresearch can be categorized and presented for instructional designers and educators.Finally, potential areas of future research for blended/hybrid courses are identified.

To find the relevant literature regarding blending/hybrid learning, the authorconducted a broad search for any articles with the keywords blended or hybrid. Theauthor then gathered the sources listed in these articles. Next, the articles collectedwere divided into to groups: (1) those that made a concrete recommendationregarding blended/hybrid learning, and (2) articles that discussed theory but did not

*Email: shelms@rmcad.edu

� 2012 Taylor & Francis

Interactive Learning Environments, 2014Vol. 22, No. 6, 804–810, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745420

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

chri

stia

ne m

oise

s] a

t 17:

00 3

0 Ju

ly 2

015

make such recommendations. Since the intended audience of this paper isinstructional designers and instructors designing for blended/hybrid formats orteaching blended/hybrid classes, only the articles in the first category were consideredfor this paper. Articles discussing theory are important but outside the scope of thisarticle. The search was also limited to research conducted in the United States,although a few articles from other countries are included as well.

Defining blended/hybrid learning

The first debated point in the literature is the best word (blended or hybrid) todescribe the teaching method. This article uses the term ‘‘blended’’ as opposed to‘‘hybrid’’ because the word blended connotes a more harmonious mixing, as opposedto a combination of incongruent methods (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). As writtenby Garrison and Kanuka (2004), ‘‘blended learning is an integration of face-to-faceand online learning experiences – not a layering of one on top of the other’’ (p. 99). Ablended course, however, means different things to different researchers and beforethis article can continue, a working definition needs to be established.

Several researchers agree that blended courses can fall anywhere on a continuumbetween a fully face-to-face (hereafter, f2f) course where all teaching and coursematerials are provided by an instructor in a traditional classroom, and a fully onlinecourse where all student–student and student–teacher interaction and learningmaterials are presented online (Delfino, Manca, & Persico, 2005; Garrison &Kanuka, 2004; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). For this article, the literature reviewedconsidered a course to be blended if some student–student and student–teacherinteraction were based in an f2f classroom and some took place in an online(asynchronous or synchronous) environment. As such, f2f courses that use links,videos, or other passive material from an online source were not considered blendedcourses.

Learning advantages of blended

The literature on blended learning has made some discoveries about how the blendedformat affects learning. Overall, several studies found students received higher gradesin blended classes than they did in fully f2f or online classes (Dziuban & Moskal,2001; Martyn, 2003; Twigg, 2003; Vaughan, 2007). Additionally, Dziuban andMoskal (2001) and Vaughan (2007) reported that blended courses had higherretention rates than fully f2f classes.

Regarding the method of communication and social presence in a blendedcourse, researchers have made several important discoveries. Students’ access to anasynchronous online forum allowed students to reason and fully construct theiropinions before posting (Alim, 2007), and kept students engaged with the universityeven when they were technically off-campus (Aspden & Helm, 2004). Having anonline forum also better prepares students for the f2f discussion (Aspden & Helm,2004).

Delfino et al. (2005) state that ‘‘the combination of online and f2f seems tocontribute to a higher level of socialization and sense of togetherness amongparticipants and, consequently, to increase the quality of learning and theachievement of instructional objectives’’ (p. 3). Similarly, Dietz-Uhler (2001) foundthat the online component of the blended course ‘‘diminished awareness of internal

805Interactive Learning Environments

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

chri

stia

ne m

oise

s] a

t 17:

00 3

0 Ju

ly 2

015

constraints’’ (p. 271). Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson (2004) found that ablended format increased the effectiveness of teamwork. One possible reason forthese findings is that the community created in a blended class is different than eitherf2f or online courses in that ‘‘learners can be independent of space and time – yettogether’’ (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p. 97).

An interesting finding by Aspden and Helm (2004) regarded a student’s ability toaccess the online content while at home. The researchers theorized that students whocould not access the online course from home would be at disadvantage and wouldperform worse than those with internet access at home. However, they found thatstudents without internet at home would access the online session of the course whenthey were on campus, and did not feel they were at a disadvantage. The authors notethat this finding may be unique to the university where the research was conductedand may not be generalizable to other schools.

With these advantages of blended courses in mind, So and Brush (2008) note thatjust turning a traditional online class into a blended class does ‘‘not necessarilyprovide students with more interactive and flexible learning experiences’’ (p. 322). Assuch, instructional design best practices should be identified specific to developing ablended course. These recommendations will be discussed next.

Instructional design recommendations for blended courses

The following recommendations provide a starting point for instructional designersdeveloping blended courses. For clarity, the recommendations will be discussed infour broad categories: (a) f2f and online scheduling, (b) communication, (c) coursecontent, and (d) other recommendations.

F2f and online scheduling

Researchers make some recommendations for how to structure the online and f2fsections of a blended course. Several authors recommend having the first scheduledclass be f2f (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Martyn, 2003; Michinov & Michinov, 2008).This first f2f meeting helps establish a sense of community among the students(Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Michinov & Michinov, 2008) and could be used to helpfamiliarize the students with the online learning tool (Martyn, 2003).

Additionally, Michinov and Michinov (2004) recommend having an f2f meetingin the middle and at the end of the course. However, more frequent f2f meetingscould be beneficial to hold proctored tests (Martyn, 2003) and to enhance both thef2f and online discussions (Delfino et al., 2005; Dietz-Uhler, 2001; Mortera-Guierrez,2006).

Communication

In most of the literature reviewed for this article, authors recommended the use ofasynchronous discussion forums for the online portion of the class (Alim, 2007;Aspden & Helm, 2004; Ausburn, 2004; Delfino et al., 2005; Dietz-Uhler, 2001;Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Martyn, 2003; Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Since students arelikely to be in the same geographical area and near the campus (to attend the f2fsessions), synchronous chat tools are also recommended by some authors (Alim,2007; Ausburn, 2004; Delfino et al., 2005; Martyn, 2003). There are also some

806 S.A. Helms

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

chri

stia

ne m

oise

s] a

t 17:

00 3

0 Ju

ly 2

015

specific recommendations for how to structure the communication in a blendedcourse.

In Delfino et al. (2005), the f2f meetings were used to set up the discussions in thefollowing online class meetings, but the authors don’t state how often they met.Rovai and Jordan (2004) cite a similar finding. Dietz-Uhler (2001) discusses theopposite relationship, noting that students perceived the f2f discussions as morevaluable when they were preceded by an online discussion. Mortera-Guierrez (2006)found that to not use the online session to prepare for the f2f session was detrimentalto student learning. Taken together, the studies suggest that the discussions onlineand f2f should support each other in a continuous conversation. Additionally,Delfino et al. (2005) suggest the students should wear name badges in the f2f sessionsso students know who they were talking with online.

Aspden and Helm (2004) further recommend using the online asynchronousforums to discuss difficult or complex topics, since this can ‘‘reduce feelings ofisolation/disengagement that might be fostered in the classroom [f2f] environment’’(p. 250). This also allows students to approach the topic at their own pace,facilitating self-directed learning (Ausburn, 2004).

A final recommendation from the literature regarding communication is to havean area where students can discuss topics not related to the class (Ausburn, 2004;Delfino et al., 2005). This creates a home base for students to talk ‘‘outside of class.’’

Course content

There are fewer recommendations about what course content should be onlineversus delivered f2f. Ausburn (2004) surveyed students taking blended courses andasked what goals they thought were most important to their learning. Among theanswers, students ranked ‘‘individualization/customization of learning,’’ ‘‘self-directed learning,’’ and ‘‘variety in learning activities and assignments’’ as the topthree goals (p. 330). This suggests that the course should be structured both onlineand f2f to provide these opportunities for the students.

Ausburn (2004) also surveyed students about what they valued having in theonline portion of the course. The top two ranked items from the students were‘‘course announcements and reminders from the instructor’’ and ‘‘course informa-tion documents (syllabus, schedules, outlines, grading, procedures, and policies)’’ (p.330). In regards to the instructional material, Delfino et al. (2005) used the f2fsessions to provide an overview of the topic and the online sessions to work throughexamples.

Student motivation and experience

The students surveyed in Aspden and Helm (2004) reported that several factorswould reduce communication and negatively impact the experience of the course.Among these were lack of email responses from the faculty member, repeating coursecontent in the online and f2f sessions, not keeping the online course content up todate with the course, and miscommunication about changes in f2f meeting times.Based on the authors’ comments, instructional designers should work to design ablended course so that f2f and online sessions enhance the material, but do notrepeat it. Changes in meeting times could be alleviated by having set f2f and onlinemeeting times for every blended course in a college’s system; however Osguthorpe

807Interactive Learning Environments

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

chri

stia

ne m

oise

s] a

t 17:

00 3

0 Ju

ly 2

015

and Graham (2003) suggest that no two blended courses will be alike. The questionof a standard blended format is an important discussion for institutions looking todevelop blended courses.

Delfino et al. (2005) also make a suggestion for blended courses that relate tostudent motivation. In their study they awarded silly prizes during the f2f classes forstudents’ behaviors online. For example, a prize could be given to the student whoposted in the course the latest at night.

Other recommendations

There is one other recommendation from Delfino et al. (2005) that doesn’t fit into theother categories. They suggest that the course evaluations used for blended coursesshould be specific to the blended format to capture the uniqueness of the blendedstructures.

Discussion

Although there is not a lot of research regarding blended courses (Ausburn, 2004),there are some recommendations from the literature instructional designers canapply when developing a blended course. Future research on blended courses isneeded and would benefit the field of education. For example, in all the studiesreviewed for this article, the blended course was at a four-year college or university.Research is needed into blended courses in two-year colleges, for-profit colleges, andhigh schools.

There is a need for more research regarding the scheduling of the f2f and onlinesessions of a blended course. While some authors provide initial findings in this area(Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Martyn, 2003; Michinov & Michinov, 2008), there maybe differences in the best way to schedule a course based on the discipline, coursecontent, space availability, and other concerns. As such, an institution may decide toadopt a variety of blended formats.

Additionally, how Web 2.0 tools change the definition and understanding of f2fand online should be taken into consideration. For example, social networking toolsand location-aware devices can extend the physical classroom into the community.Students could communicate synchronously without being in the same building.Furthermore, that students have to meet in the same location at the same time forthe f2f sessions requires that the students all work and live close to the classroom.Because of this, Web 2.0 technologies such as video conferencing sites can create avirtual f2f session online.

Web 2.0 tools can also facilitate ‘‘more informal and non-formal learningcontexts which blur the boundaries between categories of learners’’ (Conole &Alevizou, 2010, p. 12). In part, this is a result of the ability to personalize knowledgeand learning through the use of tools such as wikis and blogs. In this sense, eachclass’s constructed knowledge and understanding about the material could beslightly different. Discussing the class’s and the individual student’s personalizationof the material could be a great topic for f2f discussion.

Lastly, Web 2.0 can allow for more social learning beyond the threadeddiscussion ‘‘by providing students with personal tools and by engaging them in socialnetworks, thus allowing learners to direct their own problem-solving process’’(Conole & Alevizou, 2010, p. 14). It may be that Web 2.0 tools online present a more

808 S.A. Helms

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

chri

stia

ne m

oise

s] a

t 17:

00 3

0 Ju

ly 2

015

efficient and easy-to-use solution toward group communication and engagementthan the actual f2f sessions. If so, this would tie into the recommendation of havingthe first class session be f2f so that the students can learn to use the technologies, butthe following sessions using the Web 2.0 technologies.

Blended courses are a new and exciting area for both education and research andmay soon become a standard offering of colleges and universities (Bleed, 2001). Assuch, this presents a wonderful opportunity for researchers to help establish the fieldof blended courses and the best practices for instructional design. This article takes astep in this direction, and will hopefully provide some helpful tools for instructionaldesigners and educators.

Notes on contributor

Dr Helms has studied instructional design and educational technology since 2002 andtraditionally researches games and simulations for education. He has also been involved in theresearch, collaboration, and development of blended learning programs at three colleges andalso teaches blended courses.

References

Alim, F. (2007, May). Evaluation of a blended course from the viewpoint of constructivism.Paper presented at the International Educational Technology Conference, TurkishRepublic of Northern Cyprus.

Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment.Educational Media International, 41, 245–252. doi: 10.1080/09523980410001680851

Ausburn, L.J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended onlineeducation environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41,327–337. doi: 10.1080/0952398042000314820

Bleed, R. (2001). A hybrid campus for the new millennium. Educause Review, 36(1), 17–24.Retrieved November 6, 2012, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0110.pdf

Conole, G. & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in highereducation. The Open University. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Conole_Alevizou_2010.pdf

Delfino, M., Manca, S., & Persico, D. (2005). Harmonizing the online and face-to-facecomponents in a blended course on educational technology. Paper presented at The Courseon Educational Technology of the SSIS. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3c/fa/0b.pdf

Dietz-Uhler, B., & Bishop-Clark, C. (2001). The use of computer-mediated communication toenhance subsequent face-to-face discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 269–283.doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00006-1

Dziuban, C.D., & Moskal, P. (2001). Evaluating distributed learning in metropolitanuniversities. Metropolitan Universities, 12(1), 41–49.

Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformativepotential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 950–105. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001

Kirkman, B.I., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E., & Gibson, C.B. (2004). The impact of teamempowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-faceinteraction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175–192.

Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18–23.

Michinov, E., & Michinov, N. (2004). Identifying a transition period at the midpoint of anonline collaborative activity: A study among adult learners. Computers in HumanBehavior, 23, 1355–1371. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.12.013

Michinov, E., & Michinov, N. (2008). Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an onlinecollaboration: Its impact on patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behaviorover time. Computers & Education, 50, 1540–1557. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.03.002

809Interactive Learning Environments

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

chri

stia

ne m

oise

s] a

t 17:

00 3

0 Ju

ly 2

015

Mortera-Guierrez, F. (2006). Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning andface-to-face instruction. International Journal on E-Learning, 5, 313–337.

Osguthorpe, R.T., & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions anddirections. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 227–233.

Rovai, A.P., & Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: Acomparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. InternationalReview of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5, 1–13.

So, H-J., & Brush, T.A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presenceand satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors.Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009

Twigg, C.A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: Lessons learned from round I of thePEW grant program in course redesign. Paper presented at Center for AcademicTransformation, New York.

Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. InternationalJournal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.

810 S.A. Helms

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

chri

stia

ne m

oise

s] a

t 17:

00 3

0 Ju

ly 2

015