See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229000574

EXPLORING TEACHING APPROACHES IN BLENDED LEARNING

Article  in  Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

16 4,281

1 author:

Allan H.K. Yuen

Yew Chung College of Early Childhood Education
146 PUBLICATIONS   3,142 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Digital Divide in Education: An Experiential Understanding View project

Student acceptance and continuance of learning management system usage: A school-based longitudinal study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Allan H.K. Yuen on 16 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning
Vol. 6, No. 1 (2011) 3－23
 Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education

EXPLORING TEACHING APPROACHES IN BLENDED LEARNING

ALLAN H.K. YUEN

Centre for Information Technology in Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road
Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
hkyuen@hkucc.hku.hk

Blended learning is becoming increasingly popular in higher education. The purpose of this study is
to explore the pedagogical use of ICT in a blended learning context. Focusing on teachers’ and
students’ experience, we examined the following questions: What are the students’ and teachers’
experience in engaging with different blended learning modes? What are the teaching approaches
involved in blended learning across disciplines? Four teaching approaches, namely, providing online
resources, supporting specific pedagogy, focusing on online discussion, and enhancing course
management and delivery, emerged from the results of ten case studies. These approaches are
pedagogical practices in transition and provide empirical evidence to shed light on issues in the
research and practice of blended learning in higher education.
Keywords: Blended learning; teaching approaches; pedagogy; higher education.

1. Introduction
Twenty-first century universities are continuing to go through rapid socio-economic and
technological changes. These changes have brought about a call for universities to
examine carefully their educational practices from a new perspective and to face the
challenges that lie ahead in knowledge-based societies (Pittinsky, 2003). These
challenges include: a large population of learners from varied backgrounds, needs,
motivations, abilities, learning preferences, time availability and course content
requirements; a greater number and variety of higher education places without
corresponding increases in funding (Phillips, 2005); a demand for more “client”
responsive and flexible courses; and the drive to use information and communication
technology (ICT) in teaching and administration (Challis, Holt & Rice, 2005). In facing
such challenges, academic leaders in higher education need to rethink organizational
structures, operational strategies, and policies appropriate for the ongoing digital age
(Duderstadt, Atkins & Houweling, 2002).
Despite the evident growth and potential of ICT in higher education (Green, 2004;
Gibbons, 2005), some studies (e.g. Fox & Herrmann, 2004) have highlighted the
limitations of teacher and student uptake of ICT for educational purposes. Academic e-
learning has usually been focused on quantity rather than quality, and on superficial
technological adoption rather than conceptual pedagogical change process (Davidovitch,
2007). As a result, many university students and teachers make only limited formal

3
4 A. H.K. Yuen

academic use of ICT in teaching and learning (Selwyn, 2007). The apparent self-evidence
of educational innovation using ICT has hardly prompted people in higher education to
reflect on the very idea of innovation and consequence (Westera, 2004), and a “business
as usual” approach has been taken without anticipating any real dramatic changes (Collis
& Wende, 2002). The diffusion of technological innovation for teaching and learning has
not been widespread, nor has ICT become deeply integrated into the curriculum (Mehra
& Mital, 2007). Thus, ICT-supported innovation in pedagogy, curriculum, and
assessment is rare in higher education (Bullen & Janes, 2007; Cross & Adam, 2007).
ICT implementation in higher education is not a simple technological adoption, but
involves the consideration of a number of issues, such as infrastructure, pedagogical
practices, obstacles, student learning, organizational culture, organizational structures,
operational strategies, and appropriate policies (Duderstadt, Atkins & Houweling﹐2002;
Guri-Rosenblit﹐2005). There is a need to relate the normative interpretations of the
potential effects of ICT on teaching and learning in higher education to the empirical
realities that higher education institutions are facing (Stensaker, et al., 2007) because
“successful technology integration is a sociological issue” and “appropriate use of
technology in teaching requires the thoughtful integration of content, pedagogy, and
technology” (Mishra, Koehler & Zhao, 2007, pp. 1-2).
To address the complexity of ICT integration in higher education, this paper attempts
to explore the pedagogical use of ICT in a blended learning context. The exploration is
focused on the experiences of teachers and students, and guided by two research
questions: What are the students’ and teachers’ experiences in engaging with different
blended learning modes? What are the teaching approaches involved in blended learning
across disciplines?

2. Blended Learning
The online learning platform or learning management system (LMS) provides an
interactive environment for communication among students and teachers and equips
teachers to provide scaffolding for students to engage in collaborative and cooperative
activities even beyond classrooms. It is believed that collaborative learning leads to better
student involvement, better performance, and higher productivity (Nunamaker, Briggs,
Mittleman, Vogel & Balthazard, 1996), which is the case of e-learning systems, where
students perceive greater opportunities for communication than those in a traditional
classroom (McCloskey, Antonucci & Schug, 1998). There is an emerging trend in higher
education to combine online and face-to-face modes of learning, often referred to as
blended learning (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Though the definitions of blended learning
are many and various (Deng & Yuen, 2009), Garrison and Vaughan (2008) define
blended learning simply as the thoughtful fusion of face-to-face and online learning
experiences. “The basic principle is that face-to-face oral communication and online
written communication are optimally integrated such that the strengths of each are
blended into a unique learning experience congruent with the context and intended
educational purpose” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 5).
 Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning 5

Recent studies of blended learning in higher education have been focused on student
experience and practices (Jefferies & Hyde, 2010; Holley & Oliver, 2010). Edginton and
Holbrook (2010) designed a study to assess pharmacy students’ attitudes towards a
blended learning course. Results indicated that students’ concerns about the blended
method of learning had decreased after the course, while their enthusiasm for the benefits
of blended learning had increased. Initially, students were anxious about their ability to
communicate with the teacher in the online components, but by the end of the course, this
concern had shifted to a concern over their time management skills. Face-to-face
interactions with each other and with the teacher were more highly rated than online
interactions in the course. Based on social cognitive theory, Wu, Tennyson and Hsia
(2010) proposed a research model that examined the determinants of student learning
satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. The findings indicated that
computer self-efficacy, performance expectations, system functionality, content features,
interaction, and learning climate were the primary determinants of student learning
satisfaction with the blended e-learning system environment. The results also showed that
learning climate and performance expectations significantly affected learning satisfaction,
while computer self-efficacy, system functionality, content feature and interaction
significantly affected performance expectations. In addition, interaction had a significant
effect on learning climate.
Apart from student practices, studies have also focused on teaching practices.
Mortera-Gutierrez (2006) presented a case study of a higher education institution in
Mexico. The study described faculty best and worst practices using a blended learning
approach of e-learning and face-to-face instruction. The best blended learning teaching
practices and strategies found, related to the instructional results, were: (a) the
organization of every learning outcome on time throughout the complete semester helped
greatly in achieving learning objectives; (b) those teachers who were flexible with the
administration of students’ assignments had a better educational response from the
students; and (c) teachers always gave feedback to their students. This study
recommended that further studies be conducted to provide a fuller understanding of
blended learning environments, in particular those related to teaching practices and
strategies. Vaughan (2007) explored the benefits and challenges of blended learning in
higher education from the perspectives of students, faculty, and administration that had
direct experience with blended learning course delivery. Faculty indicated that the
challenges faced in developing a blended course included a lack of time, support and
resources for course redesign; acquiring new teaching and technology skills; and risks
associated with delivering a course in a blended format. Ocak (2010) presented the
findings of an exploratory, qualitative case study and examined problems and
impediments that faculty members encountered in blended learning environments in the
Turkish higher education system. The findings showed that faculty members’ problems
with blended teaching resulted in the identification of three inductive categories:
instructional processes, community concerns and technical issues. Eight themes further
emerged from these three categories: complexity of the instruction, lack of planning and
6 A. H.K. Yuen

organization, lack of effective communication, need for more time, lack of institutional
support, changing roles, difficulties in adopting new technologies, and lack of electronic
means. This study indicated that teaching blended courses can be highly complex and can
involve different teaching patterns, which, in turn, affects the successful implementation
of blended learning courses. However, the study of teaching approaches in blended
learning has received little attention. This paper thus aims to explore the teaching
approaches involved in blended learning, focusing on the experience of both students and
teachers. In this paper, teaching approaches are characterized as having motive and
strategy components and defined in terms of teaching strategies with associated
intentions (Kember, 1997).
What makes blended learning particularly effective, as suggested by Garrison and his
colleagues (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008), is its ability to
facilitate a community of inquiry (CoI). The heart of a CoI consists of three key elements:
social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence. Students in a CoI must feel
free to express themselves and be able to develop the personal relationships necessary to
gain a sense of belonging to the community. The formal categories of social presence are
open communication, cohesive responses, and affective connections. Cognitive presence
is basic to the inquiry process, in which inquiry includes the integration of reflective and
interactive processes. Teaching presence is essential to provide structure, facilitation, and
direction for cohesion, balance, and progression of the inquiry process. A CoI provides a
framework to understand the blended learning processes. Moore’s (1989) theory of three
types of interaction provides another meaningful lens to examine students’ interaction
and engagement in blended learning. The three types are: learner-content interaction,
learner-instructor interaction and learner-learner interaction. Learner-content interaction
is the process of intellectually interacting with content and defines a major part of
learning. When learning involves solely learner-content interaction, it becomes primarily
self-directed. Learner-instructor interaction can have a great influence on learning by
maintaining learners’ motivation and providing support and evaluation. Learner-learner
interaction can also be a valuable resource for learning. These three types of interaction
as well as the three elements of CoI were used to guide the exploration of teaching
approaches in this study.

3. Methods
Case study is formally defined as an exploration of a bounded system over time through
in-depth data collection from multiple sources of information rich in context (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Different researchers have different purposes for studying cases, and
there are three types of case study: intrinsic case study, instrumental case study, and
collective case study (Stake, 1994). This study takes an intrinsic approach. Its major
objective is to learn from the experience of the teachers and students in the pedagogical
use of ICT in a blended learning context, and description and interpretation are the main
concerns.
 Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning 7

The case study was conducted in a university which is the oldest tertiary education
institution in Hong Kong. The university has been identified as a high-ranking
international university with over 20,000 students in the 10 faculties (see Table 1). In
2008-2009, the university had 21,652 students (11,962 undergraduates, 9,690
postgraduates), of whom around 5,300 were mainland Chinese and international students.
In order to arrive at a pool of potential cases representing various disciplines for the study,
a project advisory group was formed, which included the research team, academic staff
and education development staff of the university. In consultation with the advisory
group, the research team managed to identify one case of pedagogical use of ICT from
each faculty, which provided a score of experiences reflecting a range of pedagogical
practices using ICT in blended learning. The background of the 10 selected cases is
summarized in Table 1. Obviously, these experiences are bottom-up and never
theoretically-driven in nature. The criteria for case selection included: (1) courses or
pedagogical practices in which ICT played a substantial role; (2) evidence of high level
of student participation in blended learning modes; and (3) different learning outcomes
exhibited.

Table 1. Background of selected cases

Case Faculty Course/Program taught in the case

Case 1 Architecture Construction course for undergraduate students
Case 2 Arts Course in logic and critical thinking for undergraduate and
postgraduate students
Case 3 Business and Economics Undergraduate course in business
Case 4 Dentistry Undergraduate course for dentistry students
Case 5 Education Undergraduate course for teacher education
Case 6 Engineering Undergraduate course in industrial engineering
Case 7 Law Undergraduate course in law
Case 8 Medicine Undergraduate course for medical students
Case 9 Science Biodiversity course for undergraduate students
Case 10 Social Science Geography course for undergraduate students

In order to collect data rich in context and capture their complex interactions, for each
case, the following data were collected: documents about ICT use in the case and the
curriculum materials; in situ lesson observations; and semi-structured interviews with
students and teachers.
As for lesson observations, the following data were obtained: (1) field notes – one or
two researchers attended each lesson and took notes to describe the setting, the
transactions that took place as well as comments on the observations made; and (2) the
researchers also collected curriculum materials related to the lessons observed, including
course outlines, handouts and other printed or online materials. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with teachers before the lessons took place to find out about
the lesson objectives. After the lessons, the teachers were interviewed and asked to
8 A. H.K. Yuen

comment on how far the targeted learning objectives were achieved. Major questions for
teacher interviews included: What is your view of how students learn and your role in the
pedagogical practice? What changes have the use of ICT brought about? What
experiences do your students have in using ICT?
In addition, the research team sought permission and help from the teachers to invite
a group of 4 to 6 students for a focus-group interview after the lessons. Major questions
for student interviews included: Can you describe the typical uses of ICT and how
important they are in your study? In those experiences of ICT uses you have described,
are there ways to improve your learning experience? What is your role? The research
team also collected complementary documents from the teacher, such as the faculty or
department development plan in relation to ICT in teaching and learning, and the staff
development plan in support of ICT implementation in the faculty or department.
A thematic coding and grounded approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994) were adopted
in the data analysis to construct categories guided by the research questions. NVivo
(http://www.qsrinternational.com/) was employed to analyze the collected data, which
provided a computer-based workspace that enabled researchers to work through the
qualitative data efficiently. The data were analyzed to identify various key properties that
could be integrated into some coherent categories. Attempts were made to understand the
teaching approaches in the process of blended learning.

4. Results
Four categories of teaching approaches involved in blended learning emerged from the
analysis of the 10 selected cases, namely, providing online resources, supporting specific
pedagogy, focusing on online discussion, and enhancing course management and delivery.
The following sections portray the cases under these four categories.

4.1. Providing online resources

The course in Case 2 was a credit-bearing course offered to both undergraduate and
postgraduate students. The aim of the course website was to provide free online learning
resources on critical thinking to assist teachers and students alike, both in Hong Kong and
other countries. A range of learning resources, including lectures, powerpoint
presentation, critical thinking web, wiki, and blog, was provided to support online
tutorials, online quizzes, and class exercises. The teacher gave six two-hour lectures
including discussion time. As the objective of this course was to learn, evaluate and apply
the critical thinking skills in daily life, the teacher provided rich learning materials and
vivid examples in his critical thinking web and wiki for students to refer to. Self-directed
learning was also significant in this course as students had to construct their own body of
knowledge by choosing and studying the modules freely in the critical thinking web.
They were free to take the quizzes and answer the more challenging questions.
The teaching approach of “providing online resources” seemed to be associated with
traditional instructional methods such as exercises and examinations, as described by a
student during the interview: “[The teaching mostly consists of] traditional methods. We
 Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning 9

study and have an exam after the teacher teaches us. [We use] the notes from the website;
for the exercise you can click for the answer. It tells you whether the answer you have
chosen is correct or not. The teacher has a homepage; you login and there are 20 multiple
choice questions. When you have finished you press submit. This is the way. We are not
using paper sheets for exams” (Students’ interviews, Case 2). However, this approach
was helpful and well-received by students: “I think the [course] website is helpful. Those
theories have been mentioned in the class, but there is more detailed information about
their underlying origin on the internet. Also, there are some lovely animations and
exercises” (Students’ interviews, Case 2).
One student took it further and connected the resources with learning, commenting:
“Wiki is used to make announcements and keep notes. It allows all students to access
notes. The critical thinking web is for students to do exercises and allows them to
understand the concept further. It is also a place for discussing and exploring questions,
whereas in the classroom, it provides a space for student discussion, and it is the first step
towards learning” (Students’ interviews, Case 2).
The course in Case 10 was a geography undergraduate course in the Faculty of Social
Sciences. The objective of this course was to provide students with a factual basis for
making intelligent decisions concerning the use and interpretation of maps. The teacher
had used the Geographic Information System (GIS) to demonstrate map usage. Her
department kept a GIS laboratory to provide hands on training for students in this course.
During the semester, students were required to complete 3 tasks which were highly
dependent on the use of the GIS. The lab was maintained by a teaching assistant, who
was only available for assistance several hours per week.
The arrangement of using GIS in the lab seemed to be not very well-received by
students. As there was only one teaching assistant, the whole class was divided into two
groups, and two scheduled time slots were allocated for each group. However, students
did not follow this arrangement. The teacher said: “They didn’t come to the time slot we
scheduled. They just want to come anytime they wish. A technician is there to assist, but
he might not stay there for the whole day. The students feel upset if they can’t find
someone for help. We have already allocated two sessions and each session can hold 25
people, but not many of them come in this two sessions” (Teacher’s interview, Case 10).
In response to this observation, the teacher changed the GIS component to the free
public accessible map online. The free public accessible online map not only to provided
24-hour access for students; the teacher envisaged that it would also allow the students to
have more room for their own exploration, which would encourage them to explore freely;
find new interests and new orientations; find what subject was suitable for their career;
and help them to make a difference in the process of understanding the different areas of
research. It would also encourage students to diversify their interests and to discover their
strengths, and facilitate active learning through inquiry of the map data. The role of the
teacher was to provide online resources, and students made use of the online resources
for their assignments and projects.
10 A. H.K. Yuen

In general, it was also found that students preferred to learn step-by-step, as reflected
by the teacher: “Yes, step-by-step, they like it. We have to push them. We gave them
fewer instructions for the second and third assignments. However, the fewer the
instructions given, the more difficulty they had in handling the assignments. Nowadays,
students always say they want to learn more; indeed, they want us to offer them things
step-by-step. We have to provide a lot of guidance. After the first two exercises, I wanted
them to have more initiative in the next project, but they didn’t and complained to me
instead. I explained to them that they could apply the skills that they had learned in the
first two exercises in this project, but it seems they preferred a more spoon-feed mode”
(Teacher’s interview, Case 10).
In sum, the two cases (Case 2 and 10) were categorized under the approach of
“providing online resources”. In this teaching approach, online resources were provided
for students for self-learning and to learn in a flexible way. It was generally well-received
by students when the online resources could be accessed anytime. For the course in
Social Science (Case 10), which was lab-based and then online, students were not very
happy with the arrangement that they could only use the lab during a fixed time slot.
Students were also found to prefer step-by-step guidance rather than exploring on their
own when using GIS in the lab. In these cases, the teachers’ role was mainly to deliver
information online and guide students to think, while students made use of the online
resources and applied them to assessment tasks and daily life. One concern was teachers’
proficiency in using ICT in teaching. In general, the teachers were not ICT experts, and it
was thus time-consuming for them to prepare materials by using ICT. Technical
problems also posed a challenge to teachers. Another issue is that, given the fast-
changing nature of ICT, should teachers keep up to date with ICT development?

4.2. Supporting specific pedagogy

Case 4 was about integrating ICT with problem-based learning (PBL) in the Faculty of
Dentistry, which is student-centred and clinically focused. One teacher stated: “In the
program, it’s a whole, because we have previously used WebCT in a particular
simulation laboratory course. We decided to use the functions of WebCT to support
learning in the PBL program. For a number of reasons we want students to have better
communication with teachers and one another, and also to have access to certain learning
resources online. Therefore, we set it up. We are trying to develop more learning
resources, such as video, demonstrations of clinical procedures, and a library of resources
for the students” (Teachers’ interviews, Case 4). Another teacher echoed this: “One of the
key things is that WebCT is intended to support student self-learning time because they
do not have much time for face-to-face discussion with teaching staff. They are working
collaboratively or individually, so they are doing a lot of their own research, and that’s
where the WebCT is a support, as a platform to bridge them” (Teachers’ interviews, Case
4).
Students regarded the major role of WebCT as a means of providing information; as
one student said: “It provides information, and a channel to access notes and data. For me,
 Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning 11

it assists me in learning” (Students’ interviews, Case 4). In addition, students could

connect to the WebCT with PBL: “When we first entered university, the university
introduced us to the function and the use of WebCT. We have continued to use it
throughout our dental course. In our PBL system, a new problem is posted every week.
Apart from the hardcopy provided by the teacher, we can read the notes on WebCT, so
you don’t have to worry if you lose the notes, because they are accessible online”
(Students’ interviews, Case 4).
Nonetheless, it is important not to overlook the issues involved in the selection of
information for PBL in terms of types, quality and usefulness, as reflected in a student’s
interview: “I think the ICT that the entire university is using is quite ordinary; the
information and feedback you obtain do not really help in teaching. For example, if you
upload notes, it is the same as looking for a book. Powerpoint, etc. is the main and only
ICT being used. If you want to make it better, I suggest that some tutorial videos be
included as they are more practical. We can find the information online by ourselves; if
the information provided by teachers is unorganized, we would probably use our own
methods to search for it rather than relying on the system. I think information from videos
and Powerpoint are more useful. As we are using PBL, you don’t need to give us too
much information. For me, PBL is a system that we ourselves decide how much we want
to study. After we choose how much we want to study, the teachers can then upload the
materials that we need” (Students’ interviews, Case 4).
There was a small management problem in such a fully integrated PBL curriculum, as
pointed out by a teacher: “When the students post questions, we have a type of filtering
system, so the students post questions related to the problem. Then, there has to be an
interpretive level, where that question is then classified to the relevant area. The staff
members then give their responses, which are posted and made available for the whole
year. In terms of interactivity, I first find that it is a little bit quirky. In a fully integrated
curriculum, you really cannot do it in any other way” (Teachers’ interviews, Case 4).
Case 8 described an integration of ICT and evidence-based practice (EBP) in the
Faculty of Medicine. The goal of applying this EBP was to enable students to learn how
to ask clinical questions and step into patients’ shoes with respect to what their concerns
and considerations were during the decision making process. The tutorials were
supported by online teaching and learning resource materials. In the tutorial, clinical case
videos on WebCT were shown to students for discussion. The teacher acted as a
facilitator in the discussion process to help and encourage the students to link up their
knowledge and observation with practice. During the discussion, students were advised to
perform a real-time online literature search to answer the problems from the video clips
or to support their discussion. They could re-visit the clips after class or whenever they
wanted to. The students’ made use of the video and online resources to support their
learning. The EBP strategy enhanced self-directed learning through the use of web
resources and other references.
12 A. H.K. Yuen

ICT seemed to be an essential part of the EBP course. According to a survey

conducted by the research team, all the students thought that learning would not be the
same without ICT. Several students said that without ICT in their EBP it would be very
troublesome and less interesting. However, students demanded more than merely
watching videos in the lesson. Many of them felt that there had not been sufficient use of
ICT in the course. While it was useful for their learning, it had only been used for
watching videos. Nevertheless, the role of ICT in providing online resources was very
much welcomed by the students in the EBP course. All students indicated that the
features they used most in the EBP course were downloading notes, and retrieving
reference research papers. They generally felt that the notes were useful to them and
needed for the lectures. The clinical video clips, however, seemed to have been not so
useful in the eyes of the students. All students commented that they would not watch the
clips again at home even they were uploaded on WebCT because they did not find
viewing them again would help their study. con
From class observations conducted by the research team, the ICT facilities in the
classroom were found to be not very advanced. The video clips were played on a desk-
top computer with a 15-inch CRT monitor, and it was difficult for 10 students to look at
a such a small screen all together for 10 minutes. Students sitting away from the
computer could not view the videos clearly. There were no projection facilities in the
room either. It was also found that the teacher was not familiar with the technology and
took 5 to 10 minutes to work out how to use the computer. She then sought students’ help
to play the video.
In sum, two cases (Case 4 and 8) from a clinical discipline were categorized under the
approach of “supporting specific pedagogy”. For this teaching approach, ICT was
integrated with PBL and EBP in the Faculty of Dentistry and Medicine respectively.
Students’ learning online was mainly based on WebCT. Students thought that the major
role of WebCT was in providing information. In the case of Dentistry, there was an
information selection issue in terms of types, quality and usefulness. Information needs to
be carefully chosen based on students needs. In the case of Medicine, it was found that
ICT was not used comprehensively in the course as only videos were shown, and students
said that it was not really useful to watch the videos again at home. Since ICT was an
essential part of the EPB course, students might have have gained more benefits if a
wider range of ICT resources had been provided. There was also an issue of ICT facilities,
such as the lack of projector facilities, which may have hindered teaching effectiveness of
the program.

4.3. Focusing on online discussion

Online discussion is a common teaching approach in using ICT in a blended learning
context. Case 5 concerned a core course in an undergraduate teacher education program.
This course lasted for 21 weeks with a three-week teaching practicum included. The
teacher of this course encouraged students to have online asynchronous discussion
outside regular classroom meetings. As an experienced and dedicated online facilitator
 Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning 13

herself, the teacher found that this group of students were not engaged with online
discussion in spite of her constant encouragement both online and offline. This set off the
investigation into the factors behind students’ disengagement. Motivating and inhibiting
factors that affected students’ participation in voluntary online discussion in a blended
learning context are reflected in the following excerpts from students’ interviews.
Interestingly, some students perceived the online discussion as a “resource”; as one
student commented: “I think mainly because there is a kind of resource within the online
forum other than the face-to-face meetings in the lectures” (Students’ interviews, Case 5).
In particular, such online discussion provided opportunities for students to ask questions
and form a community; in the words of another student: “I use the online discussion
forum because I want to ask some questions. I have some questions in my mind after the
lecture, and I can’t see the lecturer every day, but if there is an online discussion, there is
a community, and the lecturer encouraged us to use it, so I’ll just post it” (Students’
interviews, Case 5). In such online communication, students’ as well as the teacher’s
participation is extremely important. When a student was asked why she only read the
messages without responding, she answered: “Because I don’t think other people are
reading. Frankly, most of the professors do not respond to us very often, apart from some
of them” (Students’ interviews, Case 5).
Students were not very sure about their performance in online discussion being
assessed. In the words of one student: “We are obliged to do that. I really don’t like that
because at the very beginning, the lecturer told us that this was part of the assessment, so
you need to post your findings or insights on the discussion forum” (Students’ interviews,
Case 5). In addition to assessment, the interplay between online and face-to-face
discussion in blended learning needs thoughtful scaffolding; as a student remarked:
“Another problem about the course is that when we meet on Wednesday during the
lecture, we are required to show our discussion that we have already posted on the
discussion forum, and in the lecture, we are actually talking about the same thing as we
talked about on the discussion forum. That`s why I really don’t like them. But in
[another course] I think it’s a bit different because the discussion on the online
community is different from what we have addressed in the [face-to-face] sessions”
(Students’ interviews, Case 5).
Case 9 was an undergraduate second year module in the Division of Biodiversity,
Faculty of Science. The Learning Support Centre (LSC), which was basically a
department website serving like a LMS, was used for teaching. It contained career advice
and other learning resources links. All modules were transparent to all students. Students
could comment on other modules or download notes from other modules. The main
teaching goal was to use the discussion forum as a place for students to collaborate and
communicate among themselves on the practical case study assignment. The teacher
selected some cases to post up on the LSC discussion forum (module chat), and students
were divided into several groups accordingly to work on a case study. A group report was
generated by the group, and the assignment comprised 20% of their final marks. The
14 A. H.K. Yuen

whole class could comment on and discuss the cases shown. The teacher believed that
using the forum could help them to discuss one another`s projects easily.
Students’ views of the usefulness of the discussion forum seemed to deviate from the
teacher’s assumption. The students felt that they were forced to do discussion online as
the teacher would not give them marks if they did not do so. They only participated
because it was part of the assessment. One student said, “No one will discuss online if it
is not being assessed. After the teacher told me that the more I participated, the more
marks I would get, I immediately logged in to the forum. Some people had already posted
messages there, so I also posted something else. Later on, more and more people joined
the discussion” (Students’ interviews, Case 9).
The discussion forum could be made more comprehensive and instructional in order
to appeal students. One student reflected that he did not really know what to do on the
forum and he did not participate until just before the deadline. Another student suggested,
“It could be more interesting, for example, to create a website with some pictures,
introductions and some other information. Then, we would be more willing to take a look
at it. The task only has word description; it would be more understandable if there were
some pictures and flashes [web multimedia]” (Students’ interviews, Case 9).
Although the discussion forum was being promoted in the module, students still
found the feature “providing resources” most useful. According to the student survey,
The “Programme” section, where the teacher posted up the lecture notes for each lecture,
was voted the most useful. Students could download notes before the lecture started. The
second most useful feature was the “Module Resources”, which contained a list of
recommended texts and also web links to other relevant online resources.
Case 3 described an undergraduate level course in the Faculty of Business and
Economics. Two web-based technologies were employed to support the traditional
lecture-based course. A course blog was set up on Xanga, a popular commercial blogging
service in Hong Kong, which served as a bulletin board posting course-related materials
such as handouts, or announcements about assignments or tutorials. It was also a friendly
and interactive platform for students to post comments, ask questions or seek help. The
course blog was set to public so that everyone could view the content without logging in.
Another communication channel (i.e. MSN) was used as a supplementary tool to provide
just-in-time assistance to students. As a near-synchronous tool, it allowed students to post
questions and seek just-in-time help at flexible times and place.
Blogs and MSN not only provided a faster and convenient channel for
communication and giving feedback, they also contributed to a better relationship
between the teacher and students. Students were more willing to use and felt more
comfortable using these tools to communicate with the teacher; as the teacher pointed out:
“I’ve found that instant messaging or emails and blogs, are something that students are
more familiar with. They will show more initiative in looking for you. In the past, if you
asked them to call you, they would hesitate, but if you say hi to them in MSN, they will
find it easily. Also, I find that in using these technologies, especially using instant
 Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning 15

messaging, teachers can build a better relationship with students” (Teacher’s interview,
Case 3).
It was not compulsory for students to post comments or questions on the blog, but
they were encouraged to do so by the teacher. The teacher explained: “I think one reason
[for not making it compulsory] is that I did not require them to do something on it
because you know that when you require them to do something they will think it’s
annoying, so I did not require them to do so. I think some of them would comment on it,
use it to ask questions, subscribe to it, but some of them would just use it as a regular
website and just download materials from there, but I didn’t put more effort into pushing
it to be better, so I just keep using it” (Teacher’s interview, Case 3).
A security problem was found in using the blog; as a student mentioned: “Xanga is
open to the public, but there are some contents or internal information that we don’t want
to show to the public” (Students’ interviews, Case 3). One student suggested that it would
be more user-friendly if they were using their own course website. He explained, “It is
not necessary to create by ourselves; we can get some templates on the internet, which
include discussion forum and material upload. This makes online management easier and
more orderly. There are only links in Xanga; this is too simple and limited in use”
(Students’ interviews, Case 3).
In sum, three cases (Case 3, 5 and 9) were categorized under the approach “focusing
on online discussion”. Generally, students did not like being assessed by online
discussion, and felt that they were “forced” to post something online as it counted
towards their assignment marks. Students’ participation rate was always an issue. They
only participated because their participation was part of the assessment. In the case of
Business and Economics (Case 3), the teacher used blog and MSN in his teaching and
found that students were more willing to communicate with him. These two are
considered informal online communication tools, and participation was neither
compulsory nor assessed. This raises the question of whether making participation
compulsory in online discussion helps students’ learning. Interestingly, in the case of
Science (Case 9), students saw online discussion as a tool for providing resources. In this
teaching approach, it seemed that students still favored the convenience of getting
resources online the most.

4.4. Enhancing course management and delivery

Case 1 described a core course for undergraduate students in the Faculty of Architecture.
The teacher had just started to use WebCT for the sake of the streamlined administrative
work and the technical support offered by the centralized unit at the university. The
teaching was conducted on WebCT. The course was quite organized. One folder was
created for each week. Teaching materials such as notes, links, handouts and assignment
were posted in the corresponding folders. Students had to complete the individual
assignment for each week, and there was an online test at the end of the semester.
Students submitted assignments through WebCT, and the individual assignment with
teachers’ grading and feedback was also posted. The main learning objective of the
16 A. H.K. Yuen

course was for students to grasp the main concepts and principles in the subject area.
Students were expected to participate in the weekly learning activities and demonstrate
their understanding of various concepts.
Students felt there were major differences between face-to-face and online classes. As
a platform focusing on course management and delivery, WebCT was regarded by
students as mainly a place for downloading materials and submitting assignments, but not
a place for teaching and learning. One student remarked: “I prefer face-to-face lectures
which will help me to concentrate on learning. Online learning is often distracted by
other things like watching TV” (Students’ interviews, Case 1). Some students felt
uncomfortable with online learning: “Some notes are difficult to understand without the
lecturer’s explanation. Maybe I’m not used to learning through WebCT and asking
questions through the Internet” (Students’ interviews, Case 1). It seems clear that students
were in favor of a good blended mode of learning; as another student commented: “A
face-to-face lecture is necessary since concepts can be explained more clearly. Using
both face-to-face and online [teaching] is a good combination” (Students’ interviews,
Case 1).
Case 7 documented a core course in the Faculty of Law. A course homepage was
created and kept as an interface for students to obtain everything they needed. The
teacher explained: “What I do is maintain a course homepage. I teach 2 courses, and I use
the homepage to deliver all the basic materials, assignments, tutorial work, lecture
outlines and all the notices that students need to know about. I reach them through the
homepage. There is a discussion blog, so they can raise questions. My course runs on the
homepage with the textbook I wrote on the subject. They really only use my textbook and
homepage, and they have everything they need” (Teacher’s interview, Case 7). However,
the discussion blog was not functioning, and students were complaining, so the teacher
had decided to go for WebCT.
In this case, technology was more like an administrative tool for course management
than a means of promoting students’ deeper learning. The teacher noted: “In my case, it is
useful as an organizing tool, but as for achieving deeper learning, I don’t think so. I have
to achieve it by good tutorial problems, good materials and questions I post in my book
and lecture. In the end, it comes down to delivering a strong lecture and organizing good
tutorial problems on a weekly basis that will challenge students and cause them to engage.
Nothing to do with technology helps” (Teacher’s interview, Case 7). Similarly, students
felt the use of WebCT had made course management better, and WebCT was seen as a
course administrator. A student said, “You can download lecture notes and evaluations,
and discuss questions through WebCT. It supplies what we need. It is more like a course
administrator. It tells you when the test starts and finishes and gives you feedback; how to
get lecture notes, etc.. Basically, it is like a teaching assistant” (Students’ interviews,
Case 7). Besides administration work, WebCT was considered a bridge for
communication. Some students were too shy to ask questions face-to-face, but if there
was a discussion blog, they were willing to post questions there.
 Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning 17

Some students were confused about the use of different systems or tools, such as
LMS and the student information system. The guidelines did not seem to be clear enough;
as a student reflected: “At the beginning I was confused. I didn’t know how to get to [the
university] website. I didn’t know what the difference was between Student Connect
[note: Student Connect is the university student information system] and WebCT. I was
not sure about what WebCT was used for. It took some time for me to get to know the
broadening stuff. Some exchange students said that they didn’t know there were different
things such as WebCT, portal and Student Connect. After we had entered the website,
there were a list of links, and we did not really know which one to choose. It took some
time to check it out” (Students’ interviews, Case 7). Another student concluded that the
system was not integrated enough, and it would be better if the whole system could be
connected: “If Student Connect can connect everything at one time, that is truly student
connect” (Students’ interviews, Case 7).
Case 6 described an undergraduate course experimenting with ICT innovation in the
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering. The course aimed to provide the students with more flexible, especially
collaborative, learning experiences, as well as better means for the students to support
one another’s practice by forming a community of practitioners among themselves. An
interactive multimedia e-learning system provided a teaching platform specifically for
industrial engineering. The teacher pointed out: “I think mainly at this point it is for
dissemination of information, you know course teaching materials. It might be a platform
for students to hand in their assignments, to give some feedback, and also do some peer
evaluations…and a platform for student-to-student, student-to-tutor evaluation. I think
that’s more or less what we use it for at this stage” (Teacher’s interview, Case 6). In
addition to LMS, a cave automatic virtual environment (CAVE) system was used to
facilitate teaching by creating an interactive virtual reality, whereby images from the
system were projected onto the four walls of an enclosed room.
The teacher found that the e-learning platform was effective in delivering course
information, and that learning through cyberspace allowed more freedom and space.
Especially for the part-time master-level students, LMS created a learning platform for
students who might not be able to come to the campus more regularly. Some traditional
classroom type-learning was conducted, such as student presentations, interactive
materials and tele-conferencing.
Concerning the drawbacks of using LMS, adequate ICT support was essential in
order to make LMS worked effectively. The teacher said: “For example, if I want to put
some virtual material, you know, virtual reality, really to motivate or to make the material
more attractive, then I probably need support from them. Without knowing the
technology, without, for example, the computing support…both the hardware and
software, and also human resources, it is really difficult to make it work” (Teacher’s
interview, Case 6). However, having enough support did not necessarily encourage
teachers to use ICT in their teaching. It was more about the culture, or teachers’ own
attitudes toward ICT. The teacher further explained, “I think the culture probably is the
18 A. H.K. Yuen

most important rather than the technology. Even if you give them support, you give them
technologies, a lot of teachers will feel reluctant to implement them. Most of the teachers
would just say, well, it’s nice but what I am doing is very good or sufficient, why bother?
I provided students with good hand-out, good notes; they can have face-to-face contact;
and my office is open most of the day. Teachers’ attitude is the main obstacle in pushing
the pedagogical use of ICT too far.” (Teacher’s interview, Case 6)
In sum, three cases (Case 1, 6 and 7) were categorized under the approach “enhancing
course management and delivery”. In this approach, ICT was used to enhance course
management and delivery. In the above three cases, different course management systems
(e.g. WebCT) and an interactive multimedia e-learning system were used to achieve the
teaching and learning goals. Two main roles of ICT were observed, i.e. a tool for self-
learning through accessing online resources and an administrative tool for course
management. To enhance course management and delivery, different types of online
tools were usually used through LMS in order to increase teaching efficiency, such as
disseminating online resources, accessing and evaluating students, using discussion
forum for teacher-student and student-student interactions. Despite the multi-purposes of
LMS in this teaching approach, the use of online resources for self-learning was being
used dominantly in Case 1 and Case 6. Both teachers and students regarded LMS as a
platform which allowed more freedom and space for students’ self-learning. However,
this freedom did not necessarily increase students’ motivation in learning. Students’
initiatives for self-learning is a concern in that they might not adapt to the change from a
face-to-face to an online learning mode. For the Architecture case (Case 1), it was
discerned that students felt that a blended mode of learning and face-to-face lecture was
necessary for them to get a clearer explanation. For the case of Law (Case 7), the use of
LMS was more like an administrative tool than a means of helping students to achieve
deeper learning. As a general observation, it seems that the LMS serves as an organizing
tool in which teachers can make teaching and learning more effective. They only need to
go to the webpage, and most of the teaching and learning can be done there, for example,
uploading learning materials, arranging online assessments and evaluation, and
interacting with students.

5. Discussion
Garrison and Kanuka (2004) conclude that blended learning is consistent with the values
of traditional higher education institutions and has the proven potential to enhance both
the effectiveness and efficiency of meaningful learning experiences. This study provided
an empirical exploration of the pedagogical use of ICT in a blended learning context.
Focusing on the teachers’ and students’ experience, four teaching approaches emerged
from the findings of 10 case studies (Table 2). The identified teaching approaches are not
meant to represent a comprehensive or mutually exclusive list of categories. Rather, they
are formed as a working theory of blended learning in practice to conceptualize teaching
approaches in the development of blended learning modes. These approaches
demonstrate a range of strategies and associated intentions in using ICT in different
 Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning 19

blended modes. Students’ experiences were positive in general. The approaches were
well-received by students and stimulated meaningful learning in some sense. Nonethless,
we also identified obstacles and challenges for each case, including issues concerning
teacher practice, student practice, culture, facilities, assessment, and technology.

Table 2. A summary of teaching approaches emerged from the data analysis

Teaching Approaches Case Faculty

Providing online resources Case 2 Arts
Case 10 Social Science
Supporting specific pedagogy Case 4 Dentistry
Case 8 Medicine
Focusing on online discussion Case 5 Education
Case 9 Science
Case 3 Business and Economics
Enhancing course management and delivery Case 1 Architecture
Case 7 Law
Case 6 Engineering

Students’ overall attitude towards learning online without face-to-face lectures was
rather negative. Learning online was similar to learning by themselves, which put
considerable strain on their self-discipline and time management skills. The traditional
lecture was considered more effective by many students in grasping concepts and
principles. This result appears to confirm the conclusion of an aforementioned study (see
section 2) about a blended learning approach to teaching basic pharmacokinetics, in
which students “became more concerned about and aware of the importance of managing
their own time […] students placed a high value on face-to-face interactions with the
instructors and their peers for asking questions about the problem-solving aspects of this
course” (Edginton & Holbrook, 2010, p. 9). Meanwhile, the web-based platform was
acknowledged as a flexible and convenient resource when downloading course notes and
submitting assignments. It was concluded that ICT might be better as a supplement to
face-to-face class rather than a replacement (Yuen, Deng & Fox, 2009), as Larkin (2010)
argues similarly that “students in general, do not aspire to replace lectures with
downloadable, online versions. Many of the students […] valued the opportunity for
interactive learning provided by face-to-face teaching” (p. 238).
In the cases described above, students still had face-to-face interaction among
themselves on a daily basis in the campus. The social presence within the community was
abundant. Although the online community was acknowledged, the questions remain as to
whether an online asynchronous discussion among students would be necessary and what
roles should be played by such online discussion. This is the reason why the teachers
mostly considered the learner-content interaction in designing the online component as
focusing on the process of interacting intellectually with content (Moore, 1989). To
ensure the cognitive presence in the online activities, teachers designed sets of structured
20 A. H.K. Yuen

and assessment-centered tasks. Students needed to read the material and finish
assignments or exercises. Assessment was employed as a crucial measure to motivate and
engage students. The teacher-student interaction mainly depended on asynchronous tools
like email and online feedback on students’ work. Such a self-directed mode of learning
left students working independently. All in all, evidence of a “community of inquiry”
(Garrison & Vaughan, 2008) seems clear in the blended learning process described in the
aforementioned cases. However, the social aspect of the online community is not
noticeable and needs to be strengthened, as the key challenge in online learning is to
encourage knowledge sharing through social interaction, participation, and engagement
in various forms (Ma & Yuen, 2011).
The results indicated that students’ disengagement in online discussions was due to a
number of factors. It is possible to speculate that course design, students’ characteristics
as well as community dynamics would be essential aspects that need to be considered. It
has been suggested that the design of online activities plays a critical role in arousing
students’ interests, engagement and motivation, especially at the launching stage of
blended learning (Yuen, Deng, Fox & Tavares, 2009). Thus, thoughtful design of a
rewarding system, appropriate online information and tasks to be infused with face-to-
face meetings is important. In addition, the teacher’s facilitation and guidance are
essential to ensure focused, meaningful and quality blended learning, as the integration of
ICT in teaching and learning should emphasize interaction, flexibility and innovation
(Bates, 2000; Selwyn, 2007), and this is to be realized by linking purpose, people and
pedagogy (Stensaker, et al., 2007).

6. Conclusion
As a more pedagogically oriented innovation with many of the advantages of online
learning, blended learning could well become a standard practice favoured by both
teachers and students (Albrecht, 2006). However, the implementation of blended learning
is a process both innovative and complex, involving multi-facet variations in curriculum
content, pedagogy, ways of ICT use, teacher practices, student practices, student learning
outcomes, and organizational conditions (Duderstadt, Atkins & Houweling, 2002; Guri-
Rosenblit, 2005; Mishra, Koehler & Zhao 2007). The four teaching approaches presented
in this paper are not meant to be proven cases of blended learning that are able to enhance
both the effectiveness and efficiency of meaningful learning experiences. However, these
cases have already gone beyond a simple technological adoption and have demonstrated
different attempts at integrating content, pedagogy and technology in a blended learning
context. In conclusion, these cases are pedagogical practices in transition and provide
empirical evidence to shed light on issues in the research and practice of blended learning
in higher education. They may stimulate the design and development of the next
generation pedagogical innovation in blending learning and bring about the predicted
“paradigm shift” (Bullen & Janes, 2007; Cross & Adam, 2007) in teaching and learning
using ICT.
 Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning 21

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a competitive research grant awarded by the Hong Kong
Research Grants Council (Project No.: HKU 7452/06H). The author would like to
express his deep gratitude to all the teachers and students participated in the case studies.

References
Albrecht, B. (2006). Enriching student experience through blended learning, Educause Centre for
Aplied Research (ECAR) Research Bulletin, Vol. 2006, Issue 12, 1-12.
Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bullen, M., & Janes, D. P. (Eds.). (2007). Making the transition to e-learning, strategies and issues.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Challis, D., Holt, D., & Rice, M. (2005). Staff perceptions of the role of technology in experiential
learning: A case study from an Australian university. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 21(1), 19-39.
Collis, B., & Van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education: An
international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher education.
Enschede, Netherlands: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, M., & Adam, F. (2007). ICT policies and strategies in higher education in South Africa:
national and institutional pathways. Higher Education Policy, 20(1), 73-95.
Davidovitch, N. (2007). Pedagogy and technology-which has the upper hand? Lessons from
technological implementation at the College of Judea and Samaria, Israel. On the Horizon,
15(3), 177-189.
Deng, L., & Yuen, H. K. (2009). Designing blended learning communities: Principles and
implementation, In F. L. Wang, J. Fong, & R. C. Kwan (Eds.), Handbook of research on
hybrid learning models: Advanced tools, technologies, and application (pp. 228-243).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publications.
Duderstadt, J. J., Atkins, D. E., & Houweling, D. V. (Eds.). (2002). Issues, trends, and themes.
Higher education in the digital age. USA: American Council on Education Praeger
Publishers.
Edginton, A., & Holbrook, J. (2010). A blended learning approach to teaching basic
pharmacokinetics and the significance of face-to-face interaction. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 74(5), Article 88, pp. 1-11.
Fox, R., & Herrmann, A. (2004). Unexpected effects of new technology adoption. In D. Murphy, R.
Carr, J. Taylor, & T. M. Wong (Eds.), Distance education and technology: Issues and
practice (pp. 56-74). Hong Kong: Centre for Research in Distance and Adult Education,
Open University of Hong Kong Press.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in
higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
22 A. H.K. Yuen

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework,
principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gibbons, S. (2005). Course management systems. Library Technology Reports, 41(3), 7-11.
Green, K. C. (2004). Campus computing survey: A national study of the use of information
technology in higher education. Encino, CA: The Campus Computing Project.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of E-learning in higher
education. Higher Education Policy, 18(1), 5-29.
Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits of risk,
Computers and Education, 54(3), 693-700.
Jefferies, A., & Hyde, R. (2010). Building the future students’ blended learning experiences from
current research findings. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(2), 133-140.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.
Larkin, H. E. (2010). “But they won’t come to lectures…” The impact of audio recorded lectures
on student experience and attendance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2),
238-249.
Ma, W. K., & Yuen, H. K. (2011). Understanding online knowledge sharing: An interpersonal
relationship perspective. Computers and Education, 56(1), 210-219.
McCloskey, D. W., Antonucci, Y. L., & Schug, J. (1998). Web-based vs. traditional course
development: Identifying differences in user characteristics and performance outcomes.
Proceedings of the International Business Schools Computing Association Annual
Conference. Denver, Colorado.
Mehra, P., & Mital, M. (2007). Integrating technology into the teaching-learning transaction:
Pedagogical and technological perceptions of management faculty. International Journal of
Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 3(1), 105-
115.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd
Ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Zhao, Y. (Eds.). (2007). Faculty development by design: Integrating
technology in higher education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Mortera-Gutiérrez, F. (2006). Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning and face-
to-face instruction, International Journal of ELearning, 5(3), 313-337.
Nunamaker, J. F., Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D. D., Vogel, D. R., & Balthazard, P. A. (1996).
Lessons from a decade of group support systems research. Proceedings of the 29th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, 418-427.
Ocak, M. A. (In press). Why are faculty members not teaching blended course? Insights from
faculty members, Computers and Education.
Phillips, R. (2005). Challenging the primacy of lectures: The dissonance between theory and
practice in university teaching. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2(1),
1-12.
Pittinsky, M. S. (Ed.). (2003). The wired tower: Perspectives on the impact of the Internet on higher
education. New York: Pearson Education.
Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: A critical
perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 83-94.
 Exploring Teaching Approaches in Blended Learning 23

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Stensaker, B., Maassen, P., Borgan, M., Oftebro, M., & Karseth, B. (2007). Use, updating and
integration of ICT in higher education: Linking purpose, people and pedagogy. Higher
Education, 54(3), 417-433.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal of
ELearning, 6(1), 81-94.
Westera, W. (2004). On strategies of educational innovation: Between substitution and
transformation. Higher Education, 47(4), 501-517.
Wu, J., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning
system environment. Computers and Education, 55(1), 155-164.
Yuen, H. K., Deng, L., & Fox, R. (2009). Use of WebCT in online and blended modes. Interactive
Technology and Smart Education, 6(4), 254-260.
Yuen, H. K., Deng, L., Fox, R., & Tavares, N. J. (2009). Engaging students with online discussion
in a blended learning context: Issues and implications. In F. L. Wang et al. (Eds.), Hybrid
learning and education (pp. 150-162). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

View publication stats