I want you to write a clear, focused, concise summary similar to the example

1

Abstract A recent study involving 113,035 students across 13 countries conducted by the EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research found that blended learning envi- ronments persists as the preferred learning modality even when students are beginning to experiment with fully online open enrollment courses such as massive open online courses (MOOCs) (Dahlstrom et al. in ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research, Louisville, 2013). This chapter begins by presenting the various definitions used by scholars to characterize blended learning, ranging from a very board definition that encompasses almost multiple learning methods or techniques, to one that narrows it down to the inte- gration of online and face-to-face components. Specifically, in this book, we used the following definition of blended learning, adapted from Horn and Staker (The rise of K-12 blended learning, Innosight Institute, CA, 2011): “blended learning is any time a student learns at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home and at least in part through the Internet with some element of student control over time, place, and/or pace”. This chapter then discusses the reason why blended learn- ing is increasingly being adopted by many educators by outlining its four main benefits: an ability to meet students’ educational needs, improving student-to-student communi- cation, reducing the average overall per-student cost, and improving student learning outcomes as well as lowering attrition rates. More importantly, this chapter argues that the success of blended learning does not happen automatically, just because an online component is added to a face-to-face environment. Ultimately, the success or failure of blended learning hinges on a thoughtful connection between how the online and face- to-face components are integrated, the types of pedagogical approaches employed, and how all these elements are ‘blended’ together to attain the specific learning goals. This chapter ends by presenting a blended learning design framework that emerged from a recent study of seven experienced blended learning designers, along with a description of the various frameworks or taxonomies utilized in this book to classify the different types of pedagogies, cognitive processes of learning, and/or levels of affective learning.

Keywords Blended learning · Hybrid learning · Evidence-based practice · Pedagogy

Chapter 1 Introduction

© The Author(s) 2014 K.F. Hew and W.S. Cheung, Using Blended Learning, SpringerBriefs in Education, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-287-089-6_1

2 1 Introduction

1.1 What Is Blended Learning?

The use of blended learning is increasingly being adopted in many schools, colleges, universities, and industries around the world (Cheung and Hew 2011; Hadjerrouit 2008). Horn and Staker (2011) argued that blended learning will be the vehi- cle to push the proportion of high school courses offered online to 50 % by 2019. Moreover, in higher education, blended learning has been predicted to be the “new normal” in course delivery (Norberg et al. 2011, p. 207), or the “new traditional model” (Ross and Gage 2006, p. 167). However, many definitions of blended learn- ing abound in the literature. Some authors broadly define blended learning as the integration of almost all multiple learning methods or techniques such as the com- bination of laboratory sessions, face-to-face lectures, assigned readings, formal coursework, self-paced, collaborative, online format, as well as supervised hands-on practice (Cucciare et al. 2008; Rossett and Frazee 2006). Other authors, on the other hand, disagree with such a broad definition, preferring instead a narrower or more specific definition as the integration of online and face-to-face strategies (Dziuban et al. 2004; Graham 2006; Horn and Staker 2011; Sharma and Barrett 2007; Ward and LaBranche 2003; Young 2002).

We adopt this narrower definition of blended learning as the broader defini- tion tends to encompass all kinds of possible learning methods, hence making the scope too large to cover in this book. More specifically, we used the following def- inition of blended learning, adapted from Horn and Staker (2011): “blended learn- ing is any time a student learns at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home and at least in part through the Internet with some ele- ment of student control over time, place, and/or pace”. This definition can be illus- trated in a two-dimensional matrix (see Fig. 1.1, extracted from Staker 2011, p. 6),

Fig. 1.1 Blended learning matrix (Horn and Staker 2011, p. 6)

31.1 What Is Blended Learning?

where everything shaded gray represents blended learning. In our view, the exact proportion of online and face-to-face components does not really matter.

We know that some authors and institutions define a course as blended only if more than a certain percentage of the course is conducted online. For example, Allen and Seaman (2010) described a course as blended only if the proportion of content delivered online is between 30 and 79 %, a course as web facilitated if its online proportion is between 1 and 29 %, and a course as online if 80 % or more of its content is conducted online. Similarly, Watson et al. (2010) set a threshold of 30 % online delivery of content for a course to be considered blended. We felt, however, that such a definition is merely arbitrary and subjective, and may result in a ratio-centric construct. As Graham (2013) aptly argued, even if a percentage could be accurately established, what practical difference would it made between courses with 29 % versus 30 % of online content delivery?

Therefore, consistent with Dziuban et al. (2004)’s position, we believe that blended learning should be viewed as a pedagogical approach that combines the opportuni- ties of face-to-face learning with the opportunities of the online environment such as increasing the interaction between students and students, as well as students and instructors, rather than a mere ratio of delivery modalities. However, if all instruction takes place online, we would refer it as full online learning, and not blended learning.

1.2 Rationale for the Growth of Blended Learning

Fuelling the growth of blended learning is the belief that blended learning is able to meet the educational needs of students, particularly adult learners. For exam- ple, many graduate students may have work and family responsibilities. However, a fully online course may not be satisfying to them as many students and instruc- tors lament the loss of face-to-face contact (Dziuban et al. 2004). A recent New York Times article reported a five-year study which tracked 51,000 students enrolled in Washington State community and technical colleges. The study found that students who took higher proportions of fully online courses were less likely to earn degrees or transfer to four-year colleges (New York Times 2013). One of the main reasons for this is the lack of engagement with the instructor, resulting in online estrangement where students rarely get to know their instructors directly. Therefore, when these students need help to understand their studies, they do not know who to look for assistance.

Consequently, blended learning, which has a mixture of online learning and face-to-face component, can help overcome this problem. Blended learning can provide the flexibility that students and instructors require (McCray 2000; Strambi and Bouvet 2003; Wingard 2004) as it allows some time for face-to-face student- and instructor-engagement, as well as online learning that enables stu- dents to work on the course activities at their own convenient time and pace. It is therefore not surprising that blended learning plays an important factor in deter- mining whether students enroll in and complete the program of study (Cheung and Hew 2011).

4 1 Introduction

Blended learning can also improve communication with students via computer mediated communication tools such as asynchronous and synchronous communi- cation technologies. Blended learning can offer a higher level of interaction than commonly experienced in face-to-face courses (Dziuban et al. 2004; Wingard 2004). This is because the various technology tools available in many blended courses and course management systems combine to form a communication envi- ronment such as facilitating access to course materials and experts that might not be otherwise available (Dziuban et al. 2004). Moreover, computer mediated com- munication tools also allow students to have more control over the discussion, as compared to face-to-face discussions which may be dominated by their instructors (Jones et al. 2006; Salmon 2004).

Blended learning can also lower the average overall per-pupil costs, an increas- ingly desired wish for many educational institutes in the face of today’s budget constraints. A recent report published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute attempts to describe “the size and range of the critical cost drivers for online schools in comparison to traditional brick-and-mortar schools” (Battaglino et al. 2012, p. 2). The report described two types of online learning: virtual schools, where all instruction takes place online, and blended-learning schools, in which students “attend brick-and-mortar schools where they alternate between online and in-person instruction” (p. 3). Based on interviews with 50 experts and vendors in the field and on information collected from public documents, the report estimates that the per-pupil costs of both virtual and blended-learning schools are lower than the US$10,000 average per-pupil costs of traditional brick-and-mortar schools in the USA. More specifically, in blended learning schools, the average per-pupil cost is estimated to be $8,900, with a range of $7,600–$10,200. Although the study is limited in its cost estimate by looking only at blended learning middle schools with enrolment of about 500 students, it is…

Furthermore, some research studies have found that blended learning can increase student learning outcomes. A meta-analysis of 23 experimental or quasi-experimen- tal studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Education found that blends of online and face-to-face instruction, on average, had stronger learning outcomes than did face-to-face instruction alone (Means et al. 2010). In another study, Dziuban et al. (2004) reported that although success rates varied by college across discipline, blended courses generally produced successful student learning outcome rates (those students achieving an A, B, or C) comparable to or higher than their face-to-face and fully online counterparts. Similarly, the Community College Research Center at Columbia University found that students in blended classes performed academically as well as those in traditional face-to-face classes (New York Times 2013). In addi- tion, the attrition rates for blended courses were also generally comparable to those in face-to-face courses (Dziuban et al. 2004, 2006). Xu and Jaggars (2011) reported that students were equally likely to finish a blended course as to finish a face-to-face course. On the other hand, students in fully online courses were more likely to fail or drop out; they were also less likely to attain an educational award.

It is no wonder then that these four main reasons: an ability to meet students’ educational needs, improving student-to-student communication, reducing the

51.2 Rationale for the Growth of Blended Learning

average overall per-student cost, and improving student learning outcomes as well as lowering attrition rates, increasingly attract more and more educational institutes to embrace the blended learning approach. However, it is crucial to note that the success of blended learning does not happen automatically, just because an online component is added to a face-to-face environment (Cheung and Hew 2011). As the New York Times (2013) puts it, “hybrid [blended] courses are rare, and teach- ing professors how to manage them is costly and time consuming” (p. A22). It is not sufficient to merely put course contents on a web site for students to download for a blended-learning course to be successful. Nor is the mere inclusion of more resources such as video or online quizzes appears to influence the amount of student learning (Means et al. 2010). Central to this book, is the conviction that it is the ped- agogy or instructional strategy used which determines whether learning takes place, rather than the mere physical characteristics of the medium (Clark 1983).

1.3 Challenge in Finding the Right ‘Blend’

This therefore leads us to the important question: “How do we find the right ‘blend’ or ‘mix’ between online and offline (face-to-face) components?” This is a question that has intrigued many researchers and instructional designers of online learning environments. Although the physical characteristics of the learning environments (e.g., online or face-to-face) may not be causal factors, they can enable or con- strain particular pedagogical models (Graham 2013). This has therefore led some researchers to theorize that successful implementation of blended learning capital- izes on the strengths of both online and face-to-face modalities as listed in Table 1.1.

We believe that although an understanding of the strengths and limitations of the two learning modes is useful, it is not sufficient. Essentially, how does one find the right ‘blend’ among these different modes? As mentioned earlier, the adher- ence to a certain ratio of online and offline components (e.g., 70–30 %) is merely arbitrary and subjective. It is not well supported in research and has not found widespread acceptance among educators and instructional designers (Foo 2014).

1.4 A Proposed Framework for Designing Blended Learning

Designing for blended learning can be characterized as a complex problem solving activity. Therefore, what are some of the essential steps or procedures to be taken when an instructor designs a blended learning course? So, in an attempt to answer this very question, one of our graduate students (Foo 2014) recently conducted an in-depth interview study that examined the design process of seven instructors with at least 5 years’ experience conducting blended classes. From the content analysis of the interview data, Foo (2014) postulated the blended learning design framework shown in Fig. 1.2.

6 1 Introduction

T ab

le 1

.1

A s

um m

ar y

of s

om e

ke y

st re

ng th

s an

d li

m it

at io

ns o

f th

e on

li ne

a nd

o ffl

in e

le ar

ni ng

m od

es (

A da

pt ed

f ro

m E

ll is

2 00

1; F

oo 2

01 4)

M od

e of

l ea

rn in

g P

os si

bl e

st re

ng th

P os

si bl

e li

m it

at io

n

O nl

in e

le

ar ni

ng A

sy nc

hr on

ou s

se ss

io n

(e .g

., di

sc us

si on

fo

ru m

s or

b oa

rd s)

• In

cr ea

se d

ti m

e fo

r le

ar ne

rs t

o re

fl ec

t •

H el

ps i

nt ro

ve rt

ed s

tu de

nt s

to l

ea rn

w it

ho ut

fe

el in

g em

ba rr

as se

d •

A ll

ow s

in di

vi du

al s

to p

ar ti

ci pa

te a

t ow

n ti

m e

an d

pa ce

• R

eq ui

re s

se lf

-d is

ci pl

in e

on t

he p

ar t

of

le ar

ne rs

• H

ea vy

a dd

it io

na l

w or

k lo

ad o

n th

e pa

rt o

f th

e in

st ru

ct or

s

S yn

ch ro

no us

s es

si on

( e.

g. , c

ha ts

, a ud

io

co nf

er en

ci ng

, v id

eo c

on fe

re nc

in g)

• A

ll ow

s im

m ed

ia te

i nt

er ac

ti on

• A

ll ow

s in

di vi

du al

s to

p ar

ti ci

pa te

a t

lo ca

ti on

of

c on

ve ni

en ce

• D

if fi

cu lt

t o

as k

qu es

ti on

a nd

g et

i t

an sw

er ed

p ar

ti cu

la rl

y w

he n

ch at

s ar

e ra

pi d

an d

fi ll

ed w

it h

m an

y vo

ic es

O nl

in e

co nt

en t

de li

ve ry

( e.

g. , t

ex t,

v id

eo ,

au di

o, a

ni m

at io

n) •

A ll

ow s

le ar

ne rs

t o

fo ll

ow c

on te

nt a

t ow

n ti

m e

an d

pa ce

• L

ea rn

in g

co nt

en t

ca n

be e

as il

y re

pl ic

at ed

an

d di

st ri

bu te

d to

a ll

l ea

rn er

s

• P

os si

bl e

in te

rr up

te d

or c

ho pp

y de

li ve

ry d

ue

to t

ra ffi

c co

ng es

ti on

• A

dd it

io na

l w

or k

lo ad

o n

th e

pa rt

o f

th e

in st

ru ct

or s

to p

re pa

re t

he o

nl in

e re

so ur

ce s

O ffl

in e

le

ar ni

ng F

ac e-

to -f

ac e

se ss

io n

• P

ro vi

de s

im m

ed ia

cy o

f co

nv er

sa ti

on

(e .g

., im

m ed

ia cy

o f

re sp

on se

, i nt

er ac

ti vi

ty )

• A

ll ow

s pa

rt ic

ip an

ts t

o re

ad f

ac e-

to -f

ac e

nu an

ce s

su ch

a s

bo dy

l an

gu ag

e •

S pa

ce t

o bu

il d

in te

rp er

so na

l re

la ti

on sh

ip s

• L

im it

ed s

co pe

f or

l ea

rn er

d is

cu ss

io n

du e

to

ti m

e co

ns tr

ai nt

s •

D if

fi cu

lt f

or i

nt ro

ve rt

ed l

ea rn

er s

to s

pe ak

up

f or

f ea

r of

e m

ba rr

as sm

en t

• R

eq ui

re s

ef fo

rt a

nd t

im e

to t

ra ve

l to

a fi

xe d

lo ca

ti on

71.4 A Proposed Framework for Designing Blended Learning

The design for blended learning typically begins with an ‘Analysis’ stage (Steps 1 and 2) to determine the desired learning goals to be achieved at the end of the instruction, as well as conduct a learner analysis to understand the prior knowledge of the intended target audience. Next, comes the important process of establishing the readiness to go blended (Step 3). The blended learning decision matrix illustrated in Step 3a captures five key pre-conditions that need to be addressed (Foo 2014): institutional support, infrastructural readiness, content readiness, instructor readiness, and learner readiness. Table 1.2 summarizes some of the relevant issues to consider in each of the five key pre-condition (Foo 2014; Smith 2005).

2. Learner analysis

1. Determine desired learning goals

3. Establish readiness to go blended

3b. Ready for blended learning?

Start

End

4. Determine the pedagogical

approaches & instructional

strategies

5. Develop a blended learning model

(BLM)

6. Implementation of the BLM

7. Gather feedbacks, conduct evaluation

8. Final blended learning model

End

9. Learning goals met?

No Yes

No

Yes

(Note: Blended learning is probably not suitable. Face-to-face instruction is recommended as the mode of instruction)

3a. Blended learning decision matrix

Institutional support

S ys

te m

at ic

a na

ly si

s

Infrastructure readiness

Content readiness

Instructor readiness

Student readiness

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

Decision of the suitability

of using blended learning

Fig. 1.2 A blended learning design framework (Adapted from Foo 2014)

8 1 Introduction

If the overall assessment in Step 3 yields a positive adequacy, then the design process moves on to Step 4: Determining the pedagogical approaches to be used. However, if the overall assessment suggests an overwhelming inadequacy, then the blended learning design process ends and the next logical thing to do is to revert to face-to-face instruction. Next, comes the crucial step of putting every- thing together, of which the by-product would be an initial blended learning model (Step 5) which usually depicts how the online and face-to-face components, as well as course resources are integrated. To test the initial blended learning model, the instructional designers would typically implement it in a course (Step 6), con- duct some form of evaluations, and gather feedbacks on the effectiveness of the blended learning course in meeting the desired learning goals (Step 7), and make the necessary adjustments to yield a validated blended learning model (Step 8).

1.5 Knowledge Gap

Although the blended learning design framework postulated by Foo (2014) gives educators a useful bird’s eye view of the entire design process, it stops short of providing actual evidence-based practice regarding how particular pedagogi- cal approaches, how the online and face-to-face components, as well as course resources are put together (i.e., blended learning models) (see highlighted boxes four and five in Fig. 1.2) to attain certain learning goals.

Through our literature review, we found several scholars have previously attempted to describe the various models of blended learning found in practice. Staker (2011), for example identified six types of K-12 blended learning mod- els—face-to-face driver, rotation, flex, online lab, self blend, and online driver (see Table 1.3).

Table 1.2 Some key issues for consideration

Key pre-condition Issues to consider

Institutional support • Adequate technical support? • Resources (e.g., time, money) for faculty to plan, design, and develop blended learning?

Infrastructural readiness • Availability of a reliable and robust online platform system, broadband access?

Content readiness • Starting from scratch (and hence can be quite expensive in terms of time and money to be invested)? • Adapting from open educational resources?

Instructor readiness • Ability to facilitate student discussion online? • Willingness to contact students who are not participating? • Ability to deal effectively with disruptive online students? • Ability to promote online collaborative learning? • Ability to set up a well-organized course website?

Learner readiness • IT skills of the learners? • Internet experience of the learners?

91.5 Knowledge Gap

Twigg (2003) identified five different blended learning models that are used in higher education—supplemental, replacement, emporium, buffet, and fully online (see Table 1.4), while Rossett and Frazee (2006) outlined three general models for

Table 1.3 Blended learning models in K-12 practice (Staker 2011, pp. 7–8)

Model Description

Face-to-face driver

• Teachers deliver most of the content face-to-face • Teachers use online learning on a case-by-case basis to supplement or remediate learning

Rotation • Students rotate on a fixed schedule between learning online in an individualized, self-paced environment and a traditional face-to-face classroom • Online learning component can be remote or onsite in school • The face-to-face teacher usually oversees the online work

Flex • Features an online platform that delivers most of the content • Teachers provide on-site support on a flexible and as-needed basis • Through in-person tutoring sessions and small group sessions

Online lab • Uses an online platform to deliver the entire course but in a brick-and-mortar lab environment • Online teachers are provided to address students’ questions about course content • Paraprofessionals supervise, but offer little content expertise

Self-blend • Students take online courses to supplement their school curricula • The online courses are always remote

Online driver • Uses an online platform and teacher that deliver all curricula • Students work remotely for the most part • Face-to-face check-ins are sometimes optional and other times required • Some programs offer participation in face-to-face extracurricular activities

Table 1.4 Blended learning models in higher education practice (Twigg 2003)

Model Description

Supplemental • Retains basic structure of traditional course, especially number of face-to- face class meetings • Supplements lectures and textbooks with a variety of online activities (e.g., online quiz)

Replacement • Reduction in class-meeting time • Replaces, rather than supplements face-to-face time with online learning activities for students

Emporium • Eliminates all class meetings • Replaces class meetings with a learning resource center that provides online materials and on-demand personalized assistance • Allows students to learn at own pace and need (e.g., choose when to access course materials, what types of learning materials to use depending on their needs, and how quickly to work through the materials)

Fully online • All learning activities are online • Uses automated software graded assignments that provide immediate feed- back to students

Buffet • Offers students an assortment of learning choices or paths including lectures, individual discovery laboratories (in-class and online), group discovery labo- ratories, individual and group review (both live and online), small-group study sessions, videos, etc.

10 1 Introduction

blended learning in the corporate training environment—anchor blend, bookend blend, and field blend (see Table 1.5).

Although the aforementioned models give educators and other researchers some ideas of how blended learning may look like in practice, they tend to focus on very general high-level pedagogical approaches, and the physical dimensions of the learning environments (Graham 2013). Hence, they may not be very helpful to educators who desire more detail description of the instructional strategies used.

1.6 Purpose and Plan of This Book

This book aims to fill the aforementioned gap by discussing evidence-based pedagogical approaches and specific instructional activities related to the use of blended learning in both K-12 and higher education settings. Following the field of medical science, evidence-based practice in education involves making deci- sions that are informed by relevant empirical research evidence. The use of such evidence-based practice would be very useful to educators interested in fostering student learning through blended learning.

Specifically, in this book we will discuss evidence-based practices in relation to the following five learning goals:

(a) Fostering students’ attitude change toward country (see Chap. 2), (b) Helping students solve ill-structured design task problems (see Chap. 3), (c) Improving students’ critical thinking in assessing social studies sources of

information (see Chap. 4), (d) Improving students’ argumentative writing and oral proficiencies (see Chap. 5), and (e) Enhancing students’ learning of factual knowledge (see Chap. 6)

To achieve this aim, we will draw upon our own research studies as well as review some other relevant recent studies. The findings of these studies are all based on

Table 1.5 Blended learning in the corporate training environment (Rossett and Frazee 2006, pp. 10–12)

Model Description

Anchor blend • Starts with a substantive classroom event • Followed by independent experiences that include interaction with online resources, online learning, structured workplace learning activities, and diag- nostics, and assessments

Bookend blend • Characterized by a three-part experience—(a) something introductory online or face-to-face, (b) a substantive learning experience online or face-to-face, and (c) then something that concludes and extends the learning into practice at work

Field blend • Individuals given an option about their learning paths • Individuals choose when and where the learning resources as needed to address work-related issues • Many learning resources are available online • Face-to-face sessions can be part of the blend

111.6 Purpose and Plan of This Book

empirical support. With regard to each of the five learning goals, we will analyze each study, and describe the following elements or parameters:

(a) The type of pedagogical approaches used, (b) The cognitive processes of learning or levels of affective learning involved, (c) The specific instructional activities utilized, (d) The technological tools and course resources used, and (e) The overall blended model of how all these elements are put together in a

coherent manner.

In the Conclusion chapter, we develop a programmatic research construct for blended learning based on an earlier framework proposed by Meyen et al. (2002). The use of this programmatic research construct will not only inform researchers of future possible research related to studying learner outcomes, but also expand the scope of blended learning research to other dimensions that are hitherto not yet investigated.

Before proceeding further, it will be useful for us to begin with a description of the frameworks or taxonomies utilized in this book to classify the different types of pedagogies, cognitive processes of learning, and/or levels of affective learning.

1.7 Classifications Used in This Book

To classify the various pedagogies such as direct instruction, case-based learn- ing, project-based learning, peer teaching, group discussion, and so on, we adopt Bower et al.’s (2010, pp. 182–183) framework which organizes the type of peda- gogical approaches according to the degree of negotiation and production they fos- ter (see Table 1.6):

(a) Transmissive pedagogies—transmissive-based information delivery approaches, where a stream of information is broadcast to learners;

(b) Dialogic pedagogies—centered on discourse or negotiation between par- ticipants, and often involving exemplars followed by periods of activity and feedback;

(c) Constructionist—where learning occurs by developing a product or artefact; and (d) Co-constructive—groups of learners complete a series of goal-related tasks to

produce an artefact.

To classify the type of cognitive processes involved in learning, we adopt Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) taxonomy as it allows a more discipline-free way to exam- ine the types of thinking processes which students engage with (Byrd 2004; Hanna 2007; Noble 2004; Oliver et al. 2004; Su et al. 2004). Specifically, the original cog- nitive process taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) includes six types: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating, and their corresponding descriptions. These sub-processes have been extended by Churches (2009) to include the types of cognitive processes that specifically relate

12 1 Introduction

to digital or technology-incorporated learning. Table 1.7 lists the various cognitive processes by Anderson and Krathwohl along with Churches’ additional inputs in italics.

Finally, to classify the level of affective learning, we adopt Krathwohl’s et al. (1973) taxonomy which consists of five levels, beginning with ‘receiving’, fol- lowed by ‘responding’, valuing, ‘organization’, and ending with the highest level ‘characterization’ in which students incorporate a particular value into their lives and consistently act it out. Table 1.8 lists these five different levels, along with their descriptions and illustrative examples.

Table 1.6 Pedagogies categorized based on their degree of negotiation and production, extracted from Bower et al. (2010, p. 183)

Non-negotiated Negotiated

No product Transmissive Dialogic

Product Constructionist Co-constructive

Table 1.7 Taxonomy of cognitive processes

Types of cognitive process Description

Remembering Retrieving relevant information from memory—includes recogniz- ing, identifying, recalling, listing, naming, locating, finding, bullet pointing, highlighting, bookmarking, social networking, Social bookmarking, favorite-ing/local bookmarking, Searching, Googling

Understanding Constructing meaning; includes interpreting, paraphrasing, illustrating, instantiating, classifying, summarizing, predicting, comparing, explaining, exemplifying, advanced searching, boolean searching, blog journaling, twittering, categorising and tagging, commenting, annotating, subscribing

Applying Using a procedure in a given setting; includes implementing, executing, carrying out, using, running, loading, playing, operat- ing, hacking, uploading, sharing, editing

Analyzing Breaking material into its component parts and examining how these parts relate to one another and to an overall structure; includes organizing, deconstructing, finding coherence, integrating, mashing, linking, reverse-engineering, cracking, mind-mapping, validating, tagging

Evaluating Making judgments based on certain criteria or standards; includes checking, hypothesising, critiquing, experimenting, judging, testing, detecting, monitoring, blog/vlog commenting, reviewing, posting, moderating, collaborating, networking, reflecting, Alpha and beta testing

Creating Putting things together to form a functional whole; includes design- ing, constructing, planning, producing, inventing, devising, mak- ing, programming, filming, animating, blogging, video blogging, mixing, remixing, wiki-ing, publishing, videocasting, podcasting, directing/producing, creating or building mash ups

13

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman J. (2010). Learning on demand. Online education in the United States, 2009. The Sloan Consortium: Babson Survey Research group. Retrieved on December 6, 2012, from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf

Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Battaglino, T. B., Haldeman, M. & Laurans, E. (2012). The costs of online learning. Washington DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-costs-of-online-learning.html

Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198.

Byrd, P. A. (2004). The revised taxonomy and prospective teachers. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 244–248.

Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2011). Design and evaluation of two blended learning approaches: Lessons learned. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), 1319–1337.

Churches, A. (2009). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Retrieved on July 24, 2014 from http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s+Digital+taxonomy+v3.01.pdf.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

Cucciare, M., Weingardt, K. R., & Villafranca, S. (2008). Using blended learning to implement evidence-based psychotherapies. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 15(4), 299–307.

Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J. D., & Dziuban, C. (2013). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2013. (Research report). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved on February 6, 2014, from https://net.educause.edu/ir/ library/pdf/ERS1302/ERS1302.pdf

Table 1.8 Taxonomy of affective learning

Level Description Illustrative example

Receiving Refers to a learner’s attending to certain stimuli or phenomena

Listens to other people’s viewpoints; reads materials about a particular idea, belief, or position

Responding Refers to a learner reacting to par- ticular stimuli or phenomena

Completes homework; reads the assigned materials; participates in discussions; questions ideas or con- cepts; shares thoughts and feelings about particular issue

Valuing Refers to a learner’s accepting par- ticular beliefs, ideas, positions

Seeks out information related to particular phenomena or stimuli; expresses preference or support for a certain activity or belief or idea

Organization Refers to a learner’s effort in conceptualizing particular values, beliefs, or ideas, resolving conflicts between them to build an internally consistent value system

Attempts to identify the character- istics or basic assumptions which underlie particular values, beliefs, ideas, positions, or objects; forms judgments regarding these elements; begins to form dominant values, beliefs, or ideas

Characterization Refers to a learner acting consistently with the new value, idea, or belief

Adheres to particular values, ideas, beliefs (e.g., ethical practice)

References

14 1 Introduction

Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR) Research Bulletin, 7. Retrieved on December 6, 2012, from http:// net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf

Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195–208). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Ellis, A. (2001). Student-centred collaborative learning via face-to-face and asynchronous online communication: What’s the difference? In Proceedings of the 18th ASCILITE conference (pp. 169–177). Melbourne, Australia: ASCILITE.

Foo, K. L. (2014). Exploratory study on blended learning. Unpublished master thesis. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future direc- tions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global per- spectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hadjerrouit, S. (2008). Towards a blended learning model for teaching and learning computer programming: A case study. Informatics in Education, 7(2), 181–210.

Hanna, W. (2007). The new Bloom’s taxonomy: Implications for music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(4), 7–16.

Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Mountain View, CA: Innosight Institute. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/inno sight/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf

Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 1–23.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.

McCray, G. E. (2000). The hybrid course: Merging on-line instruction and the traditional class- room. Information Technology and Management, 1(4), 307–327.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence- based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development: Washington, D.C.

Meyen, E. L., Aust, R., Gauch, J. M., Hinton, H. S., Isaacson, R. E., Smith, S. J., et al. (2002). e-Learning: A programmatic research construct for the future. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(3), 37–46.

New York Times. (2013, February 19). The trouble with online college (editorial). p. A22. Nobel, T. (2004). Integrating the revised bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A plan-

ning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 193–211. Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On

the Horizon, 19(3), 207–216. Oliver, D., Dobele, T., Greber, M., & Roberts, T. (2004). This course has a bloom rating of 3.9. In

R. Lister & A. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth Australasian conference on computing education 2004 (pp. 227–231). Dunedin, New Zealand: Australian Computer Society.

Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT andour customers in higher education. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 155–168). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Rossett, A., & Frazee, R. V. (2006). Blended learning opportunities. White Paper, American Management Association. Retrieved October 27, 2006, from http://www.amanet.org/blended/ insights.htm

15References

Salmon, G. (2004). E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. Taylor & Francis Group.

Sharma, P. & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Macmillan Education Australia.

Smith, T. C. (2005). Fifty-one competencies for online instruction. The Journal of Educators Online, 2(2). Retrieved on February 4, 2014, from http://www.thejeo.com/Ted%20Smith%20 Final.pdf

Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute, Inc. Strambi, A., & Bouvet, E. (2003). Flexibility and interaction at a distance: A mixed-mode envi-

ronment for language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 81–102. Su, W. M., Osisek, P., & Starnes, B. (2004). Applying the revised bloom’s taxonomy to a medi-

cal-surgical nursing lesson. Nurse Educator, 3, 116–120. Twigg, C.A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning.

Educause Review, 38(5), 28, 30, 32–36, 38. Ward, J., & LaBranche, G. (2003). Blended learning: The convergence of e-learning and meet-

ings. Franchising World, 35(4), 22–23. Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping pace with K-12 online

learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group report. Wingard, R. G. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in web-enhanced courses: A multi-institu-

tional study. Educause Quarterly, 27(1), 26–35. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2011). Online and hybrid course enrollment and performance

in Washington State community and technical colleges. CCRC working paper no. 31. Community College Research Center Teachers College: Columbia University.

Young, J. R. (2002, March 22). ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28), A33−A34