EDU CAU SE
Ce nt e r for Applie d Re se a rc h
Re se a rch Bulle t in
V olum e 2 0 0 4 , I ssue 7
March 30, 2004
Ble nde d Le a rning
Charles D. Dziuban, University of Central Florida
Joel L. Hartman, University of Central Florida
Patsy D. Moskal, University of Central Florida
Authors listed in alphabetical order
4772 Walnut Street, Suite 206
Boulder, Colorado 80301-2538
www.educause.edu/ecar/
Ove r vie w
The recent appearance of books, trade magazine and journal articles, conferences, and
campus initiatives focusing on “blended learning” would lead one to believe that a new
educational phenomenon has been discovered. In actuality, the blending of face-to-face
instruction with various types of non-classroom technology-mediated delivery has been
practiced within the academy for more than four decades. DeZure,1 Buckley,2 Barr and
Tagg,3 and others note that the confluence of new pedagogies (for example, the change
in emphasis from teaching-centered to student-centered learning paradigms), new
technologies (for example, the rapid spread of the Internet, World Wide Web, and
personal computers), and new theories of learning (for example, brain-based learning
and social constructivism) are enabling entirely new models of teaching and learning
and that this change is of sufficient magnitude to be described as an educational
transformation or paradigm shift. A nexus for the development of these new models has
been the online environment. Previous educational technologies, such as instructional
television, have tended to replicate the classroom environment and its traditional
teaching methods. Web-based learning environments invite—and may even require—
reconceptualization of the learning paradigm. As reported in Campus Computing 2003,4
more than half of all college courses now reportedly use Internet-based resources, and
about half of all courses in public research universities have a course Web site. A third
of all college courses employ a course management system to facilitate access to online
resources and interactions.
The novelty of online learning is apparent in the diversity of names given to the
phenomenon: Web-based learning, e-learning, and asynchronous learning networks,
among others. These efforts have been focused primarily on off-campus student
populations. With the more recent on-campus emphasis, yet another set of labels has
appeared, including hybrid learning, blended learning, and mixed-mode instruction. The
mere existence of so many names for what is essentially a single concept suggests that
no dominant model has yet been accepted as a definition of standard practice.
For purposes of this bulletin, the term “blended learning” refers to courses that combine
face-to-face classroom instruction with online learning and reduced classroom contact
hours (reduced seat time). The latter point is an important distinction because it is
certainly possible to enhance regular face-to-face courses with online resources without
displacing classroom contact hours. However, we believe that combining face-to-face
and fully online components optimizes both environments in ways impossible in other
formats. But what is blended learning? Is it Web-enhanced classroom instruction, or
classroom-enhanced online instruction? What proportion of each is required to label a
course as “blended”? And more importantly, what are the educational and organizational
implications of the emerging blended learning phenomenon?
At the University of Central Florida (UCF), we recognize a continuum of instructional
models ranging from fully face-to-face to fully online. Between the two are Webenhanced courses (face-to-face courses that make pedagogically significant use of the
Web through a course management system but do not reduce seat time) and blended
2
courses that combine face-to-face and online instruction with reduced seat time. We
have observed that some institutions define a course as blended if more than a certain
percent of the course is online. It is our position that blended learning should be viewed
as a pedagogical approach that combines the effectiveness and socialization
opportunities of the classroom with the technologically enhanced active learning
possibilities of the online environment, rather than a ratio of delivery modalities. In other
words, blended learning should be approached not merely as a temporal construct, but
rather as a fundamental redesign of the instructional model with the following
characteristics:
a shift from lecture- to student-centered instruction in which students become
active and interactive learners (this shift should apply to the entire course,
including the face-to-face contact sessions);
increases in interaction between student-instructor, student-student, studentcontent, and student-outside resources; and
integrated formative and summative assessment mechanisms for students and
instructor.
Our research has shown that while student success and high levels of student and
instructor satisfaction can be produced consistently in the fully online environment, many
faculty and students lament the loss of face-to-face contact. Blended learning retains the
face-to-face element, making it—in the words of many faculty—the “best of both worlds.”
Some faculty who are not yet comfortable in the fully online environment find blended
courses to be an effective first step, allowing them to begin with a course that is mostly
face-to-face, then expand the online component as their expertise in this environment
increases.
Maximizing success in a blended learning initiative requires a planned and wellsupported approach that includes a theory-based instructional model, high-quality faculty
development, course development assistance, learner support, and ongoing formative
and summative assessment. In our own blended learning courses, we have consistently
found high levels of student and faculty satisfaction, student learning outcomes that are
higher than in comparable face-to-face and fully online courses, and high student
demand because of the increased convenience and flexibility. One of the leastmentioned benefits of student participation in Web-based courses, whether fully online
or blended, is the resulting increase in student (and probably instructor) information
literacy, providing students with new abilities that benefit them throughout their entire
academic and employment careers.
Blended learning also benefits the institution by improving the efficiency of classroom
use and reducing on-campus traffic and the associated need for parking spaces. It is
also possible to apply the blended model in innovative ways to both increase student
learning outcomes and reduce instructional delivery costs. For example, by applying an
“aggregation” model, three sections of a medium-enrollment course can be combined
into a single blended “supersection,” with one third of the students attending a Monday,
Wednesday, or Friday face-to-face class and all students participating in a well-designed
3
online environment. This configuration has the potential to increase student learning
outcomes, while reducing direct instructional costs by 25 to 50 percent. “Supersection”
configurations for Tuesday–Thursday and other class scheduling alternatives are equally
feasible. Similarly, student flexibility and learning outcomes can be improved in some
courses with very high enrollment by converting them to a blended format. In this model,
one third of the students will meet face-to-face once a week (for example, Monday,
Wednesday, or Friday) with other course activity occurring online.
Blended learning also brings new operational challenges. For most institutions, it is
difficult to optimize the classroom scheduling process to capture all classroom hours left
unused by blended courses. Presuming multiple courses can be scheduled into a single
scheduling block (for example, 9:00 to 10:00 a.m., Monday, Wednesday, and Friday), an
institution’s final examination schedule may place all three courses in the same testing
location at the same time. Blended courses are highly likely to require a computer,
projector, and Internet access in the classroom used for the face-to-face class meetings.
As the number of blended courses increases, the demand for multimedia-equipped
classrooms may exceed the supply.
As UCF’s distributed learning initiative has evolved, we have found that some faculty
use blended courses in creative ways that makes sharing the unused classroom time
particularly difficult. For example, faculty may meet every other week in a face-to-face
mode with alternate weeks delivered via the Web, while others arrange their on-campus
components to coincide with topics they feel require a face-to-face classroom
environment. Though these strategies may be quite appropriate for instructional
purposes, they reduce the opportunity to make more efficient use of classroom space.
We have learned that in practice much more coordination (and buy in) from both faculty
and those responsible for classroom scheduling is required. Another blended learning
challenge on our campus is that while department chairs are responsible for scheduling,
they often do not talk to their counterparts in other departments. A decentralized
scheduling mechanism makes it much more challenging to ensure that a blended
education course, for instance, shares a classroom with a blended engineering course
section. Only in those departments where multiple sections of blended courses are
offered (English Composition I, for instance) are those responsible for scheduling using
these courses to their advantage. A centralized approach or coordination among those
who schedule classroom space is necessary to help ensure efficiency.
At UCF, blended courses were first considered in 1996, when university researchers
found that more than 75 percent of students enrolled in our initial fully online “distance
learning” courses were also enrolled in on-campus face-to-face sections.5 Our concept
of an online student who never came to campus but existed only in the virtual world was
a fallacy. Only for those programs that are offered only fully online do students tend not
to have an on-campus presence. From an administrative viewpoint, the notion of
students flexibly combining both their online and on-campus experiences brought about
the idea of creating courses that blended both worlds as well.
4
H ighlight s of U CF Out c om e s of
Ble nde d Le a r ning
Our research has found that blended courses have the potential to increase student
learning outcomes while lowering attrition rates in comparison with equivalent fully online
courses. In this regard, we have found that the blended model is comparable to or in
some cases better than face-to-face. Table 1 presents comparison data showing
success rates (those students achieving an A, B, or C) over two years of Web offerings.
Table 2 presents comparable results for withdrawal rates.
Table 1. Percentages of Students Succeeding (Grades of A, B, or C) in
Face-to-Face, Blended, and Fully Online Courses at UCF
Spring
Summer
Fall
Spring
Summer
Fall
Spring
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2003
Face-toface
91
93
91
90
94
91
91
Blended
91
97
94
91
97
92
91
Fully
online
89
93
90
92
92
92
91
Table 2. Percentages of Students Withdrawing from Face-to-Face,
Blended, and Fully Online Courses at UCF
Spring
Summer
Fall
Spring
Summer
Fall
Spring
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2003
Face-toface
6
3
4
5
3
3
5
Blended
6
2
5
5
2
6
5
Fully
online
10
6
8
8
6
6
7
In addition, we find that blended learning results in success and attrition rates
comparable to the face-to-face modality for all ethnicities. Figures 1 and 2 indicate
success and withdrawal rates for the spring 2003 semester. In our past seven years of
research, these trends remain consistent. Blended learning appears to provide students
with an alternative instructional modality with success rates and attrition comparable to
face-to-face courses.
5
Figure 1. Success Rates by Ethnicity for Spring 2003
96
94
94
93
92
Percentage
92
91 91
91
90
90
91
90
89
Percent F2F
Percent Blended
88
86 86
86
84
82
Asian
African
American
Hispanic
Native
American
Caucasian
Other
Ethnicity
Figure 2. Withdrawal Rates by Ethnicity for Spring 2003
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
Percentage
5
5
5
5
Percent F2F
4
3
Percent Blended
3
3
2
1
1
0
0
Asian
African
American
Hispanic
Native
American
Caucasian
Other
Ethnicity
We attribute the success of these courses to effective instructional design and the
extensive support provided for both faculty and students. While blended courses have
less Web instruction compared to fully online courses, they require similar support
structures. On-campus labs and virtual student support mechanisms such as online
learner aids and help-desk service provide students with mechanisms for receiving help
when needed—often in the wee hours of the morning. However, sound instructional
design becomes critical, with the most successful faculty reevaluating their course
design as a whole rather than looking for chunks to transfer to the Web while leaving the
remaining instruction untouched.6
As our faculty develop their blended courses, they are encouraged to focus on learnercentered, engaging instruction using components such as discussion groups, chat
rooms, and e-mail to facilitate increased interaction among students and with the
6
instructor. Assessment often becomes creative and authentic. For example, faculty
develop rubrics for measuring learning through discussion content and incorporate
active learning components. At UCF, a faculty development course (delivered in a
blended format that encompasses sound instructional design principles) facilitates this
transformation process. Faculty learn requisite technological skills, pedagogical
principles, and success strategies. Through discourse and interaction with instructional
designers, as well as other faculty who have become veterans at delivering Web
instruction, they formulate, then implement their plans for course redesign. As with
teaching in any mode, faculty develop and mature as they become more experienced
with delivering instruction in a blended learning format. Often, they go on to transform
multiple courses with Web components as they continue to reevaluate and improve their
teaching methods.
We believe a positive side-effect of providing a high level of support is that the majority
of faculty are satisfied with their blended learning courses (Figure 3) and indicate they
would teach another in the future. Faculty continue to respond positively regarding the
convenience and increased instructional quality their Web components provide. Further,
they speak of increased interaction in their blended classes and of the technology
competency they have attained using Web instruction.
Figure 3. Faculty Satisfaction with Blended Learning Courses (N = 43)
Unsatisfied, 5%
Neutral, 7%
Satisfied, 88%
The blended course initiative has experienced significant growth on our campus. As
indicated in Figure 4, enrollment varies by semester, with summer semesters having the
lowest enrollment; but the blue trend line indicates the rapid rate of adoption of the
blended instructional model at our institution.
7
Figure 4. Semester Enrollment Growth in Blended Learning at UCF
4,500
4,221
4,196
4,268
4,000
3,500
Enrollment
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,966
2,114
1,952
1,441
1,395
1,393
1,000
811
500
0
Spring
2000
Summer
2000
Fall
2000
Spring
2001
Summer
2001
Fall
2001
Spring
2002
Summer
2002
Fall
2002
Spring
2003
Semester
What I t M e a ns t o H ighe r Educ at ion
Blended learning offers potential for genuine transformation within the academy. A
recent National Research Council report by the Panel on the Impact of Information
Technology on the Future of the Research University7 speculated that information
technology will alter the university’s usual constraints of space and time, transforming
how institutions of higher education are organized and financed, as well as altering their
intellectual activities. This is a bold assertion that intersects what we view as the
“traditional” academy with what is now becoming a transformed academy.
The transformational nature of blended courses creates complicated interactions among
many components of the university similar to those found in the literature regarding
complex and social systems theories. Forrester8 offered insights about interventions in
complex systems (such as universities), suggesting they have the following common
characteristics:
Predicting the way interventions will impact the institution is virtually impossible.
Final outcomes are often counterintuitive.
Unanticipated side-effects, both positive and negative, must be confronted. At
times, those effects have more impact than the originally planned outcomes.
Social systems theorists postulate primary changes in the roles of faculty, students, and
administrators. Faculty must reassess their expectations and their students’
expectations for effective instruction. Students must reevaluate their roles as blended
courses require them to incur more responsibility for managing their learning.
8
Administrators adapt by developing organizational arrangements that accommodate new
teaching and learning models in a manner that is more responsive to students and
faculty. Students consistently report that blended learning represents a university model
that is more congruent with their lifestyles. They say they become substantially more
active in their learning and gain technological empowerment that expands beyond the
confines of “the course.” They find value in the outside resources that become available
in blended learning—transcending the limitations of typical faculty-student, studentstudent, and student-content interaction patterns.
Students must come to terms, however, with the fact that previously successful learning
approaches may not be nearly as effective in the blended environment. In a sense, they
must relearn how to learn. The rhythms of blended courses differ from those in face-toface classes, forcing students to stay actively engaged and connected. For students, the
landscape of learning is drastically altered, although they are still able to anchor their
learning experience on the familiar face-to-face class meetings.
Oblinger9 and Wendover10 consider the implications of generational values and
education highlighting those students belonging to generation X (born 1965–1980) and
the millennials (born 1981–1994), who make up the majority of today’s university
population. According to Wendover, these groups have been impacted by such factors
as radio, newspapers, movies, television, computers, and pagers. In addition, millennials
grew up with cell phones, instant messaging, the World Wide Web, wireless
communication, and advertising without boundaries. Those influences help shape the
value systems of each generation. As Alan Kay summarized it, technology is anything
invented after you were born.11 Characteristics that describe generation X include:
Works to live rather than lives to work
Views jobs within the context of a contract
Demands clear and consistent expectations
Is kept productive by having fun while working
Views money as part of a larger equation defined by overall contribution
Sees versatility as providing security
One the other hand, millennials:
Tend to live for the moment
Are attuned to the immediacy of technology
Respond to clear and consistent expectations
View money as an immediate consumable
Will give respect only after they experience it
Tend to question everything
9
Based on these generational norms, Oblinger characterized the educational
expectations of these students in terms of elimination of delays, customer service,
experiential learning, and staying connected. Blended learning offers a mechanism for
meeting the needs of these students within the value system they embrace.
Blended learning helps instructors evolve as designers of active learning environments,
thus becoming much more facilitative in their teaching. Interestingly, this phenomenon is
consistent with what Carl Rogers12 called the “facilitative teacher,” where instructional
environments take precedence over information transmittal.
These changes are dramatic for the faculty. Just as students have to relearn how to
learn, faculty have to relearn how to teach. Faculty report having to scrutinize every
aspect of their courses. This phenomenon leads professors to modify their personal
professional theories of teaching and, more importantly, helps them articulate and test
those theories. Faculty development for blended learning brings together instructors
from different academic areas, creating a forum for mentoring and the exchange of
effective pedagogical practices. With the appropriate faculty development model, this
can be a value-added feature because the cross-discipline sharing strengthens the
effectiveness of almost all instructors who participate. The blended model can also
revitalize senior professors by refocusing them on the practice of effective instruction.
For the first time, many of them experience the formal instructional systems design
process as they discover flexibility, access, and degrees of freedom not possible in the
face-to-face environment.
At the institutional level, university administrators experience changing role expectations
just as do faculty and students, especially when entire programs or substantial portions
of programs transition to the blended environment. Top-level administrators see the
demand for more flexible learning opportunities in the communities they serve and can
respond to these needs with blended learning initiatives. Deans can offer programs to a
wider constituency than formerly possible—especially with the more-efficient classroom
space use afforded by blended models. Department chairs have greater flexibility with
faculty and class schedules. Generally, the college or university is able to enhance its
outreach capability.
Administrators, however, must confront important transformational issues in blended
learning. A predominant consideration in this area is financial effectiveness, where the
university must weigh the costs of faculty and student support versus the opportunity to
expand capacity while reducing the demands on brick-and-mortar infrastructure. In
addition, because instructors report that teaching in the blended format is more time
intensive than in face-to-face classes, especially in the conversion phase, institutions
must deal with the opportunity costs of faculty involvement in this format.
In spite of these and other institutional issues, blended learning impacts higher
education in a positive way by forming the underpinning of a transformational model that
irrevocably alters expectations for students, faculty, and administrators. The process is
always formative and sometimes opportunistic. The outcomes are most effective when
participants share an inspiring vision; seek maximum possible involvement; bring out the
best in others; celebrate accomplishments; and model behaviors that facilitate
10
collaboration. These facilitative leadership components in conjunction with blended
learning create the synergy that fosters a climate for positive realignment of higher
education.
Blended learning in higher education is an evolving phenomenon that offers promise for
addressing challenges such as access, cost, efficiency, and timely degree completion. In
addition, this approach will impact aspects of the academy such as faculty development
and rewards, student retention, college and department structure, as well as the notion
of lifelong learning. Our experience is that blended learning is a transformational force,
even at the outer edges of its influence. In a real sense, “We’ve only just begun!”
Ke y Que st ions t o Ask
What programs in your institution are best suited for blended learning?
What models of blended learning are most appropriate for your campus?
What support mechanisms are necessary to ensure the success of blended
learning on your campus?
How can blended learning become an effective mechanism for meeting some of
your institution’s strategic initiatives?
How will you assess the impact of blended learning?
Whe re t o Le a r n M ore
Campus Computing Project, <http://www.campuscomputing.net>.
Center for Generational Studies, <http://www.gentrends.com>.
Learning online at UCF, <http://online.ucf.edu/index.html>.
D. Oblinger, “Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the ‘New
Students,’” EDUCAUSE Review, Volume 38, Number 4, 2003, pp. 37–47,
<http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf>.
UCF Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness,
<http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~rite>.
Endnot e s
1.
D. DeZure, ed., Learning from Change: Landmarks in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education from
Change Magazine, 1969–1999 (Sterling, Va.: Stylus Publishing Inc., 2000).
2.
D. P. Buckley, “In Pursuit of the Learning Paradigm: Coupling Faculty Transformation and Institutional
Change,” EDUCAUSE Review, Volume 37, Number 1, 2002, pp. 29–38,
<http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0202.pdf>.
11
3.
R. B. Barr and J. Tagg, “From Teaching to Learning—A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education,”
Change, Volume 27, Number 6, 1995, pp. 12–25.
4.
K. C. Green, The 2003 Campus Computing Survey (Encino, Calif.: The Campus Computing Project,
2003), <http://www.campuscomputing.net>.
5.
C. Dziuban et al. (in press), “Three ALN Modalities: An Institutional Perspective,” The Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, Sloan Consortium, <http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/index.asp>.
6.
Focus group conducted by Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness with Instructional Designers
from UCF’s Course Development and Web Services, December 2003.
7.
Panel on the Impact of Information Technology on the Future of the Research University, Preparing for
the Revolution: Information Technology and the Future of the Research University (Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press, 2002), <http://www.nap.edu/books/030908640X/html/>.
8.
J. W. Forrester, “System Dynamics and the Lessons of 35 Years,”
<http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/papers/D-4224-4.pdf>.
9.
D. Oblinger, “Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the ‘New Students,’” EDUCAUSE
Review, Volume 38, Number 4, 2003, pp. 37–47, <http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf>.
10. R. W. Wendover, “From Ricky and Lucy to Beavis and Butthead: Managing the New Work Force,” The
Center for Generational Studies, <http://www.gentrends.com/articles.html>.
11. D. Taspcott, The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1996), p. 17.
12. C. R. Rogers, “The Interpersonal Relationship in the Facilitation of Learning,” in Culture and Processes of
Adult Learning, M. Thorpe, R. Edwards, and A. Hanson, eds. (London: Routledge, 1983).
About t he Aut hors
At the University of Central Florida, Charles D. Dziuban (dziuban@mail.ucf.edu) is
Director, Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness; Joel L. Hartman
(joel@mail.ucf.edu) is Vice Provost, Information Technologies and Resources; and
Patsy D. Moskal (pdmoskal@mail.ucf.edu) is Faculty Research Associate, Research
Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness.
Copyright 2004 EDUCAUSE and Charles D. Dziuban, Joel L. Hartman, and Patsy D. Moskal. All rights
reserved. This ECAR research bulletin is proprietary and intended for use only by subscribers. Reproduction,
or distribution of ECAR research bulletins to those not formally affiliated with the subscribing organization, is
strictly prohibited unless prior permission is granted by EDUCAUSE and the authors.
12