269

23

Blended Learning Environments

Charles R. Graham

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

Charles Dziuban

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida

CONTENTS

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................270Learning Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................................................270

Transformational Potential ....................................................................................................................................270Completion Rates and Academic Performance.....................................................................................................271Assessment.............................................................................................................................................................271

Access..............................................................................................................................................................................271Cost Effectiveness ...........................................................................................................................................................271Student Satisfaction.........................................................................................................................................................272Faculty Satisfaction .........................................................................................................................................................272Organizational Considerations ........................................................................................................................................273Research Directions.........................................................................................................................................................273

Institutional Research ............................................................................................................................................273Faculty Adoption..........................................................................................................................................273Models for Support and Training ................................................................................................................273

Learning Effectiveness Research...........................................................................................................................274Conceptual Frameworks and Models ..........................................................................................................274Role of Live Interaction vs. Computer-Mediated Communication ............................................................274Role of Learner Choice and Self-Regulation ..............................................................................................274

Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................................274References .......................................................................................................................................................................274

ABSTRACT

In recent decades, rapid technological innovation hasfacilitated a convergence between

traditional face-to-face

and

distributed

(or technology-mediated) learning

environments. These

blended learning environments

tryto take advantage of the strengths of both archetypallearning environments (Graham, 2006). The emergenceof blended learning is highlighted in higher educationand in industry training literature. The

Chronicle of

Charles R. Graham and Charles Dziuban

270

Higher Education

reports that the President of Penn-sylvania State University regards the convergencebetween online and residential instruction as the “sin-gle greatest unrecognized trend in higher educationtoday” (Young, 2002, p. A33). Similarly, the AmericanSociety for Training and Development identifiesblended learning as one of the top ten emergent trendsin the knowledge delivery industry (Finn, 2002). Yet,surprisingly, we understand little about the nature ofblended learning systems. This chapter identifies coreissues and research about blended learning using theSloan Consortium’s five pillars (learning effectiveness,student satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, cost effective-ness, and access) as an organizing framework (Lorenzoand Moore, 2002). The authors also discuss futuredirections in blended learning research.

KEYWORDS

Blended learning environment:

A learning environ-ment that combines face-to-face instruction withtechnology-mediated instruction.

Hybrid learning environment:

Alternative term forblended learning environment.

INTRODUCTION

The term

blended learning

is relatively new in highereducation and in corporate settings (the terms

hybrid

and

blended

can be used interchangeably). An ongoingdiscussion has ensued on the precise meaning of theterm (Driscoll, 2002; Graham et al., 2003; Jones, 2006;Laster, 2004; Masie, 2006; Oliver and Trigwell, 2005;Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003), however, the mostcommon position is that

blended learning environ-ments combine face-to-face instruction with technol-ogy-mediated instruction

(Graham, 2006; Graham etal., 2003). Traditional face-to-face instruction involvesinteractions between instructors and learners who arein the same place, whereas technology-mediatedinstruction uses information and communication tech-nologies (ICT) to mediate the learning experience andinteractions without requiring that learners and instruc-tors be located together.

Research suggests three primary reasons for adopt-ing a blended approach to instruction: (1) improvedlearning effectiveness, (2) increased access and con-venience, and (3) greater cost effectiveness (Graham,2006). Most often, educators adopt blended learningapproaches to explore gains and tradeoffs in compar-ison with strictly traditional settings or entirely distrib-uted environments.

This chapter identifies core issues and research inthe blended learning format using the Sloan Consor-tium’s five pillars (learning effectiveness, student sat-isfaction, faculty satisfaction, cost effectiveness, andaccess) as an organizing framework (Lorenzo andMoore, 2002). We also provide some directions forfuture research. We have chosen to focus on blendedlearning environments in a higher education context,while acknowledging that significant innovations alsooccur in informal, military, and corporate contexts(Collis et al., 2005; Harris, 2005; Kirkley and Kirkley,2005, 2006; Lewis and Orton, 2006; Newton and Ellis,2005; Wenger and Ferguson, 2006; Wisher, 2006).

LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS

Key questions with regard to the effectiveness ofblended environments include:

• What are the affordances of face-to-face andtechnology-mediated contexts and how canthe strengths of each be used to improveteaching and learning?

• How do short-term student learning out-comes interact with more systemic longerterm student outcomes?

• What are the emerging models for assessinglearning outcomes in the blended learningenvironment?

• What is the appropriate role for studentsbecoming involved in the assessment of theirown learning effectiveness?

Transformational Potential

Researchers recognize the potential for transforminglearning when combining both face-to-face and tech-nology-mediated instruction (Garrison and Kanuta,2004; Graham, 2006; Graham and Robison, 2007).Many allude to this potential when they state thatblended learning capitalizes on the best of both worlds.The simple elegance of the blended learning conceptcan also be a weakness, however, if the focus is entirelyon the mode of instruction rather than the holisticnature of the learning experience. For example,instructors commonly state that their course is a blendthat consists of

x

% online and

y

% face-to-face, whichis not informative without knowing the nature of theactivities occurring in the distinct learning environ-ments and how the course effectively uses the affor-dances of the two environments (Cross, 2006). Forblended learning to reach its full transformationalpotential, the primary goal should be rethinking and

Blended Learning Environments

271

redesigning the teaching and learning relationship (i.e.,improved pedagogy) with efficiency and convenienceas possible secondary benefits (Garrison and Kanuta,2004, p. 99). Blended learning must capitalize on thestrengths of both online and face-to-face modalities tocreate a more

active learning

environment (Grahamand Robison, 2007).

Completion Rates and Academic Performance

Current studies on learning effectiveness in blendedcourses and programs concentrate on measures suchas grades and withdrawal rates that are highly sensitiveto factors such as course level, college, and depart-ment. This instability suggests that using course modeas an effect in comparison studies is not a particularlyviable line of inquiry; however, some studies have beendirected toward learning effectiveness in blended envi-ronments. Rochester Institute of Technology’s pilotprogram reported that completion rates were approxi-mately 95% (Humbert and Vignare, 2004; Starenko etal., 2007), and Reasons and colleagues (Reasons,2004; Reasons et al., 2005) found that fully onlinestudents succeed at rates higher than those in face-to-face or blended courses. Additional studies have showncomparable success in blended courses, yet othersreport them as superior regarding learning effective-ness (Boyle et al., 2003; Cottrell and Robinson, 2003;Dowling et al., 2003; O’Toole and Absalom, 2003;Riffell and Sibley, 2004). In larger data-mining studiesof several thousand student registrations, researchersat the University of Central Florida found that blendinglearning courses produced comparable or superior suc-cess rates compared to face-to-face or fully onlinemodes when college and gender contributions areremoved (Dziuban et al., 2006).

Assessment

At present, most assessment mechanisms in blendedlearning remain traditional, as they are objective, non-contextual, and inauthentic; however, as the initiativematures, student assessment will, by necessity, becomeinterpretive, contextual, and authentic. Brown et al.(2007) identified several important student perceptionsabout the efficacy of assessment techniques in theblended environment. They found that novice learnersbelieve that traditional measures such as multiple-choicetests better reflect their learning status than more inter-pretive measures. More experienced learners, however,report confidence in assessment activities that involvecollaborative work and interactive feedback. These find-ings give credence to developing theories that incorpo-rate the nexus of information literacy, technology liter-

acy, and critical thinking into a broader concept ofinformation fluency—a foundation for assessment inblended learning (University of Central Florida, 2005).

ACCESS

Key questions with regard to access include:

• How does the enhanced accessibilityafforded by blended learning impact com-pletion rates in higher education?

• How does blended learning impact the edu-cational opportunities for under-representedpopulations?

• How does accessibility interact with qualityof learning?

The issue of learner access is fundamental to blendedlearning and includes access to institutions, access toprograms, and access to courses (Mayadas, 2001). Theissue of quality is critical when considering the goalof access. Shea (2007, pp. 19–20) asserts: “If qualitysuffers, increased access is of no benefit. Studentsdon’t want access to low quality programs, faculty donot wish to teach in such programs, and alumni do notwish to support such programs.”

Three student populations appear to have particularneeds with regard to access: those far from campus, thosenear campus, and those on campus. The issue for thesepopulations hinges on determining the degree to whichfaculty and students need alternative instructional modal-ities (Otte, 2005). In addition, instructional modalitiessuch as blending might facilitate access to educationalopportunities for students with disabilities. RochesterInstitute of Technology provides an excellent exampleof how blended courses can increase educationalopportunities and learning effectiveness for hearing-impaired students (Starenko et al., 2007). Fundamen-tally, economic principles (e.g., reduced opportunitycosts and comparative advantage) yield advantages forstudents who are either on or near campus.

COST EFFECTIVENESS

Key questions regarding cost effectiveness include:

• What are some effective models for assess-ing cost effectiveness in blended learning?

• For which contexts (high enrollment courses,specific disciplines) is cost effectivenessaccepted and valued by stakeholders?

• What relationships exist between cost effec-tiveness and student learning outcomes?

Charles R. Graham and Charles Dziuban

272

The Center for Academic Transformation (Twigg, 2003)developed the primary models for cost effectiveness inblended learning. Using these models, several institu-tions have demonstrated that it is possible to improvequality and reduce costs, typically through reduceddependence on human resources. Robinson (2005) dem-onstrated that, by adding technology to the instructionaldesign, quality increases, and in most cases costs arecomparable or somewhat lower than face-to-face offer-ings. The University of Central Florida has reported costsavings, improved facilities utilization, improved learn-ing, and continued program growth (Dziuban et al.,2006); however, return on investment cannot be deter-mined via a simple spreadsheet calculation. Many lesstangible factors contribute, including increased successrates, reduced number of drop outs, and improved fac-ulty and student skills. Depending on the institutionalcontext and the model chosen, cost savings may or maynot be realized. Blended learning, however, offers realpotential for a positive return on investment.

STUDENT SATISFACTION

Key research questions pertaining to student satisfac-tion include:

• What components in a blended learningenvironment contribute most to student sat-isfaction?

• In what contexts is student satisfaction a via-ble outcome measure for learning quality?

• How is student satisfaction impacted whenstudents are given a range of options regard-ing the nature of the blend in a course?

Student issues in blended learning emerge from thetraditional academy and from the burgeoning onlineenvironments in higher education. Prensky (2001a,b)suggested that

digital natives

(the millennial genera-tion), who expect the immediacy of technology, col-laborative learning opportunities, and active learningenvironments, force faculty and administrators toadopt more effective pedagogies. Oblinger andOblinger (2005) claim that for these students comput-ers and personal technologies are a way of life. TheInternet is more important to them than television, andthey learn primarily through the processes of trial anderror (Bisoux, 2002; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005). Weshould not be surprised, therefore, that some tensionexists between the millennial generation’s preferredlearning styles and what higher education currentlyoffers—even in blended courses (Aviles et al., 2005).

Several issues mediate student satisfaction withblended learning. Some studies report consistentlyhigh satisfaction levels for blended courses (Dziubanet al., 2004), while others indicate somewhat less pos-itive attitudes (Utts et al., 2003). Some studies indicatethat students with an intuitive cognitive style experi-ence a lower sense of community in their blendedcourses than students with analytic approaches tolearning (Graff, 2003). Conversely, studies such asthose conducted by Rovai and Jordan (2004) haverevealed a greater sense of community in blendedcourses when compared with face-to-face and fullyonline courses. Even though investigators report con-flicting results about student satisfaction, most studieswith substantial and stable samples have found pre-dominately positive reactions; the majority indicatethat convenience, flexibility, and the reduced opportu-nity costs involved in the learning process are the pri-mary factors (Vignare, 2002). These elements tend tobe independent of several potentially biasing factors,such as class size and discipline.

FACULTY SATISFACTION

Key research questions with regard to faculty satisfac-tion with blended learning include:

• What factors lead to faculty satisfaction inblended learning?

• What models do we have for supporting fac-ulty adoption of blended learning?

• How do faculty workloads relate to satisfac-tion with blended learning in the context oftenure and promotion?

Faculty satisfaction is an important element that sup-ports or detracts from the adoption of blended learning.The University of Central Florida reported that 88%of the faculty who taught blended courses were satis-fied with the course and would teach in a blendedformat again in the future, but only 41% of the facultyin the Rochester Institute of Technology BlendedLearning Pilot Project expressed a similar interest(Dziuban et al., 2004; RIT Online Learning Depart-ment, 2005). Many documented factors influence fac-ulty satisfaction (Hartman et al., 2000). Three majorelements are (1) impact on learning, (2) impact onworkload, and (3) recognition that faculty efforts arevalued. Many faculty members adopt blended learningbecause they believe it will improve learning effective-ness; some also believe that it will add convenienceand improve their efficiency.

Blended Learning Environments

273

Increasingly, faculty are acquiring new technolog-ical skills and assuming new role expectations associ-ated with those skills (Dziuban et al., 2006; Kaleta etal., 2007). In blended learning, the faculty must masterthe skills of both the face-to-face instructor and theonline facilitator; thus, most research reports thatimplementing blended learning requires additional fac-ulty time and effort (Kaleta et al., 2007; Lee and Im,2006; Lefoe and Hedberg, 2006). The faculty timeinvestment can be reduced through properly designedprofessional development and instructional support ser-vices such as training opportunities and performancesupport systems. Many faculty members incur the addi-tional workload costs because they see the benefits forstudent learning (Starenko et al., 2007) or because theyview the extra workload as a cost that will diminish asthey become more comfortable with the new techno-logical tools. Although research cites faculty recogni-tion and compensation as key elements in successfulblended programs, only one fifth of higher educationinstitutions report providing formal recognition andrewards for technology integration (Green, 2004).

ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Key research questions with regard to organizationalconsiderations and their impact on blended learninginclude:

• What organizational components should bein place for blended learning to become asystemic initiative?

• How will blended learning manifest itself indifferent organizational contexts such ascommunity colleges, metropolitan researchuniversities, and liberal arts colleges?

• What impact is blended learning having onthe traditional academy?

Institutional support mechanisms play a vital role inthe success of blended courses and programs. In con-sidering an optimal institutional climate, Hartman(2005) suggested that the organizational foundationshould be built on theories of practice where the aca-demic units are able find a common ground for instruc-tional development. He specified that the elements ofthose theories should address instructional models,faculty development issues, course development struc-tures, and effective assessment designs, both institu-tional and at the course level. Further, an effectiveinstitutional model should undergo continuous refine-ment and development while the institution develops

increased organizational capacity. Hartman argued thatan effective institutional approach demands up-frontexecutive buy-in and early infusion into the collegesand departments. Further prerequisites involve faculty-and student-centered approaches that make blendedlearning something the institution

is

rather than some-thing it

does

(Hartman, 2005).

RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

We now focus on two important areas for futureresearch: institutional research and learning effective-ness research.

Institutional Research

Faculty Adoption

Ultimately, the success or failure of blended approacheshinges on widespread faculty adoption of effective prac-tices. We know relatively little about why faculty adoptand implement a specific blended instructional modeland how they are making the instructional choicesinvolved in course redesign (Kaleta et al., 2007). Somecourse redesign efforts are systemic in nature, such asthe 30 projects supported by the Center for AcademicTransformation (Twigg, 2003). The majority ofchange, however, is occurring through a process thatCollis and van der Wende (2002) refer to as

stretchingthe mold

. In a campus-wide survey of faculty, Grahamand Robison (2007) found that over one third of thefaculty reported having taught a blended course, butmany of the blends only made small enhancements topractice and did not change teaching and learning insignificant or transformative ways. We need to learnhow to avoid some of the traps historically associatedwith the adoption of technology-rich solutions, suchas embracing rigid practices,

status quo

adherence, ora tendency for educational systems to preserve them-selves by domesticating new technologies to supportold practices (Beckwith, 1988; Salomon, 2002).

Models for Support and Training

Research supports the supposition that institutionalsupport is necessary for mainstream faculty and stu-dents to adopt blended learning. Issues that requireinvestigation include: (1) how to minimize increaseddemands on faculty and student time; (2) how to pro-vide instructors and learners with the necessary skillsto succeed, particularly in the technology-mediatedenvironment; and (3) how to change the organizationalculture into one willing to accept innovations such as

Charles R. Graham and Charles Dziuban

274

blended learning. Other research might investigatemodels for faculty support and training in blendedenvironments and what aspects of the models are trans-ferable to other contexts.

Learning Effectiveness Research

Conceptual Frameworks and Models

Design problems, such as creating a blended environ-ment, are highly context dependent, with an almostinfinite number of possible solutions. Researchersshould better articulate conceptual frameworks thatwill serve blended contexts (Shea, 2007). The

commu-nity of inquiry model

is one possible framework (Gar-rison et al., 2000; Garrison and Vaughan, 2007), but itwould be more helpful to have a range of rich blendedlearning models so designers could design tradeoffs intheir own specific contexts.

Role of Live Interaction vs. Computer-Mediated Communication

Under what conditions is human interaction importantto the learning outcomes and learner satisfaction withthe experience? When and why should we be consid-ering human interaction such as collaboration andlearning communities (Alavi and Dufner, 2005)? Howdoes live interaction vs. low-fidelity asynchronousinteraction affect the learning experience? These ques-tions are just a few that are directly relevant to decidingwhen to have face-to-face or technology-mediatedinteractions between participants or with a nonhumaninstructional system. Some evidence indicates thatlearners in blended environments place greater valueor emphasis on the face-to-face components, whileother findings suggest that the face-to-face elementsare unnecessary (Graham, 2006). Research related tobetter understanding the nature of human interactionin blended learning environments is a promising direc-tion of inquiry (Shea, 2007).

Role of Learner Choice and Self-Regulation

How are learners making choices about the kinds ofblends in which they are participating? Are choicesbeing made primarily on the basis of convenience andflexibility? How much information and guidance arebeing provided to learners to help them make decisionsabout how different blends will affect their learningexperience? Online components are perceived asrequiring a greater amount of discipline for learners tosucceed (Allen and Seaman, 2005), so how can blendedenvironments be designed to support increasing learnermaturity and capabilities for self-regulation?

CONCLUSIONS

Learning environments have affordances that facilitateor constrain different types of interactions and activities.Although much can be learned and synthesized fromresearch in both distance and traditional learning envi-ronments, blended environments provide a paradigmthat is different than just a linear combination of the two;for example, reactions to the use of computer-mediateddiscussions can be quite different in a course that alsomeets face-to-face vs. a completely online course (Anand Frick, 2006; Schweizer et al., 2003; Yanes, 2004).In a completely online course, the computer-mediateddiscussion may be valued as the only means of humaninteraction, while in the blended context learners mightperceive it as a low-fidelity, time-consuming channel forcommunication. Faculty and learners will take advan-tage of the opportunities in their learning environmentsbased on their expectations, goals, and understanding ofthe learning possibilities within the environment. Cur-rently, only a small (but growing) body of research isspecifically related to blended environments. We needmore research on the design of blended environmentsand how instructors and learners engage in the act ofteaching and learning in these environments.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M. and Dufner, D. (2005). Technology-mediated collab-orative learning: a research perspective. In

LearningTogether Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Net-works

, edited by S. R. Hiltz and R. Goldman, pp. 191–213.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Allen, I. E. and Seaman, J. (2005).

Growing by Degrees: OnlineEducation in the United States, 2005

. Needham, MA: SloanConsortium.

An, Y.-J. and Frick, T. (2006). Student perceptions of asynchro-nous computer-mediated communication in face-to-facecourses [electronic version].

J. Comput.-Mediated Commun.

,11, Article 5 (http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ an.html).

Aviles, K., Phillips, B., Rosenblatt, T., and Vargas, J. (2005). Ifhigher education listened to me.

EDUCAUSE Rev.

,

40(5),16–28.

Beckwith, D. (1988). The future of educational technology.

Can. J. Educ. Commun.

,

17(1), 3–20.Bisoux, T. (2002). Rethinking IT.

BizEd

,

Jan./Feb., 30–34.Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., and Pickard, P.

(2003). Using blended learning to improve student successin learning to program.

J. Educ. Media

,

28(2–3), 165–178.Brown, G., Smith, T., and Henderson, T. (2007). Student per-

ceptions of assessment efficacy in online and blendedclasses. In

Blended Learning: Research Perspectives

, editedby A. G. Picciano and C. D. Dziuban, pp. 145–160.Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Collis, B. and van der Wende, M. (2002).

Models of Technologyand Change in Higher Education: An International Com-parative Survey on the Current and Future Use of ICT inHigher Education

. Enschede, the Netherlands: Center forHigher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente.

Blended Learning Environments

275

Collis, B., Bianco, M., Margaryan, A., and Waring, B. (2005).Putting blended learning to work: a case study from a mul-tinational oil company.

Educ. Commun. Inform.

,

5(3),233–250.*

Cottrell, D. M. and Robinson, R. A. (2003). Blended learning inan accounting course.

Q. Rev. Distance Educ.

,

4(3), 261–269.Cross, J. (2006). Foreword. In

Handbook of Blended Learning:Global Perspectives

,

Local Designs

, edited by C. J. Bonkand C. R. Graham, pp. xvii–xxiii. San Francisco, CA:Pfeiffer Publishing.*

Dowling, C., Godfrey, J. M., and Gyles, N. (2003). Do hybridflexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting stu-dents learning outcomes?

Account. Educ.

,

12(4), 373–391.Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: let’s get beyond the hype

[electronic version].

e-Learning

, 54 (http://elearningmag.com/ltimagazine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=11755).

Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J., and Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blendedlearning.

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Res. (ECAR) Res.Bull.

,

2004(7), 1–12.Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P. D., and Sorg,

S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In

Hand-book of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives

,

LocalDesigns

, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp.195–208. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.*

Dziuban, C., Shea, P., and Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). Faculty rolesand satisfaction in asynchronous learning networks. In

Learning Together Online: Research on AsynchronousLearning Networks

, edited by S. R. Hiltz and R. Goldman,pp. 169–190. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Finn, A. (2002). Trends in e-learning [electronic version].

Learning Circuits

, 3 (http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/nov2002/finn.htm).

Garrison, D. R. and Kanuta, H. (2004). Blended learning:uncovering its transformative potential in higher education.

Internet Higher Educ.

,

7(2), 95–105.*Garrison, D. R. and Vaughan, N. (2007).

Blended Learning inHigher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines

.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2000). Criticalinquiry in a text-based environment: computer-conferencingin higher education.

Internet Higher Educ.

,

11(1), 1–14.Graff, M. (2003). Individual differences in sense of classroom

community in a blended learning environment.

J. Educ.Media

,

28(2–3), 203–210.Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: definition,

current trends, and future directions. In

Handbook ofBlended Learning: Global Perspectives

,

Local Designs

,edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 3–21. SanFrancisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.*

Graham, C. R. and Robison, R. (2007). Realizing the transfor-mational potential of blended learning: comparing cases oftransforming blends and enhancing blends in higher educa-tion. In

Blended Learning: Research Perspectives

, edited byA. G. Picciano and C. D. Dziuban, pp. 83–110. Needham,MA: Sloan Consortium.

Graham, C. R., Allen, S., and Ure, D. (2003).

Blended LearningEnvironments: A Review of the Research Literature

,http://msed.byu.edu/ipt/graham/vita/ble_litrev.pdf.

Green, K. C. (2004).

Campus Computing 2004: The 15thNational Survey of Computing and Information Technologyin American Higher Education

. Encino, CA: The CampusComputing Project.

Harris, P. (2005). Training’s new wave.

Train. Dev.

,

59(8),45–48.

Hartman, J. (2005). Online@UCF. Paper presented at the Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning, April 17–19, Chicago, IL.

Hartman, J., Dziuban, C., and Moskal, P. (2000). Faculty satis-faction in ALNs: a dependent or independent variable?

J.Asynchr. Learn. Netw.

,

4(3), 155–179.Humbert, J. and Vignare, K. (2004). RIT introduces blended

learning successfully. In

Engaging Communities: Wisdomfrom the Sloan Consortium

, edited by J. C. Moore, pp.141–152. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Jones, N. (2006). e-College Wales, a case study of blendedlearning. In

Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Per-spectives

,

Local Designs

, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R.Graham, pp. 182–194. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publish-ing.

Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., and Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering,designing, and delivering hybrid courses. In

Blended Learn-ing: Research Perspectives

, edited by A. G. Picciano and C.D. Dziuban, pp. 111–144. Needham, MA: Sloan Consor-tium.

Kirkley, S. E. and Kirkley, J. R. (2005). Creating next generationblended learning environments using mixed reality, videogames and simulations.

TechTrends

,

49(3), 42–53.Kirkley, J. R. and Kirkley, S. E. (2006). Expanding the bound-

aries of blended learning: transforming learning with mixedand virtual reality technologies. In

Handbook of BlendedLearning: Global Perspectives

,

Local Designs

, edited by C.J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 533–549. San Francisco, CA:Pfeiffer Publishing.

Laster, S. (2004). Blended learning: driving forward without adefinition. In

Engaging Communities: Wisdom from theSloan Consortium

, edited by J. C. Moore. Needham, MA:Sloan Consortium.

Lee, O. and Im, Y. (2006). The emergence of the cyber-univer-sity and blended learning in Korea. In

Handbook of BlendedLearning: Global Perspectives

,

Local Designs

, edited by C.J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 281–295. San Francisco, CA:Pfeiffer Publishing.

Lefoe, G. and Hedberg, J. G. (2006). Blending on and offcampus: a tale of two cities. In

Handbook of Blended Learn-ing: Global Perspectives

,

Local Designs

, edited by C. J.Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 325–337. San Francisco, CA:Pfeiffer Publishing.

Lewis, N. J. and Orton, P. Z. (2006). Blended learning forbusiness impact. In

Handbook of Blended Learning: GlobalPerspectives

,

Local Designs

, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R.Graham, pp. 61–75. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Lorenzo, G. and Moore, J. C. (2002).

The Sloan ConsortiumReport to the Nation: Five Pillars of Quality Online Educa-tion

[electronic version], http://www.sloan-c.org/effective/pillarreport1.pdf.

Masie, E. (2006). The blended learning imperative. In

Hand-book of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives

,

LocalDesigns

, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 22–26.San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.*

Mayadas, F. (2001). Testimony to the Kerrey Commission onWeb-based education.

J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw.

,

5(1),134–138.

Newton, D. and Ellis, A. (2005). Effective implementation ofe-learning: a case study of the Australian army.

J. WorkplaceLearn.

,

17(5/6), 385–397.Oblinger, D. G. and Oblinger, J. L. (2005).

Educating the NetGeneration

, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf.Oliver, M. and Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be

redeemed?

E-learning

,

2(1), 17–26.

Charles R. Graham and Charles Dziuban

276

Osguthorpe, R. T. and Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learningsystems: definitions and directions.

Q. Rev. Distance Educ.

,4(3), 227–234.*

O’Toole, J. M. and Absalom, D. J. (2003). The impact ofblended learning on student outcomes: is there room on thehorse for two?

J. Educ. Media

,

28(2–3), 179–190.Otte, G. (2005). Using blended learning to drive faculty develop-

ment (and visa versa). In Elements of Quality Online Educa-tion: Engaging Communities, Vol. 6, edited by J. Bourne andJ. C. Moore, pp. 71–84. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. OnHorizon, 9(5), 1–6.

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part2. Do they really think differently? On Horizon, 9(6), 1–6.

Reasons, S. G. (2004). Hybrid courses: hidden dangers? Dis-tance Educ. Rep., 8(7), 3–7.

Reasons, S. G., Valadares, K., and Slavkin, M. (2005). Ques-tioning the hybrid model: student outcomes in differentcourse formats. J. Asynchr. Learn., 9(1), 83–94.

Riffell, S. K. and Sibley, D. F. (2004). Can hybrid course for-mats increase attendance in undergraduate environmentalscience courses? J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., 33, 1–5.

RIT Online Learning Department. (2005). Blended LearningPilot Project [electronic version], http://online.rit.edu/fac-ulty/instructional_design/blended/RITBlendedPilotFinalRe-port.pdf.

Robison, R. (2005). The business of online education: are wecost competitive? In Elements of Quality Online Educa-tion: Engaging Communities, edited by J. Bourne and J.C. Moore, pp. 173–181. Needham, MA: Sloan Consor-tium.

Rovai, A. P. and Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning andsense of community: a comparative analysis with traditionaland fully online graduate courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist.Learn., 5(2), 13.

Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: why don’t wesee the promised revolution? Educ. Technol., 42(2), 71–75.

Schweizer, K., Paechter, M., and Weidenmann, B. (2003).Blended learning as a strategy to improve collaborative taskperformance. J. Educ. Media, 28(2–3), 211–224.

Shea, P. (2007). Towards a conceptual framework for learningin blended environments. In Blended Learning: ResearchPerspectives, edited by A. G. Picciano and C. D. Dziuban,pp. 19–36. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Starenko, M., Vignare, K., and Humbert, J. (2007). Enhancingstudent interaction and sustaining faculty instructional inno-vations through blended learning. In Blended Learning:Research Perspectives, edited by A. G. Picciano and C. D.Dziuban, pp. 161–178. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Twigg, C. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: newmodels for online learning. EDUCAUSE Rev.,38(Sept./Oct.), 28–38.

University of Central Florida. (2005). Quality Enhancement Pro-gram: Information Fluency Initiative, http://www.if.ucf.edu/.

Utts, J., Sommer, B., Acredolo, M. W., Maher, M. W., andMatthews, H. R. (2003). A study comparing traditional andhybrid internet-based instruction in introductory statisticsclasses. J. Stat. Educ., 11(3), 171–173.

Vignare, K. (2002). Longitudinal success measures of onlinelearning students at the Rochester Institute of Technology.In Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice andDirection, Vol. 4, edited by J. Bourne and J. C. Moore, pp.261–278. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Wenger, M. S. and Ferguson, C. (2006). A learning ecologymodel for blended learning from Sun Microsystems. InHandbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, LocalDesigns, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 76–91.San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Wisher, R. A. (2006). Blended learning in military training. InHandbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, LocalDesigns, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp.519–532. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Yanes, M. J. (2004). Distance education in traditional classes:a hybrid model. Q. Rev. Distance Educ., 5(4), 265–276.

Young, J. R. (2002). ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the dividebetween traditional and online instruction. Chron. High.Educ., March 22, A-33.*

* Indicates a core reference.