DRO Deakin Research Online, Deakin University’s Research Repository Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

Introduction to blended learning practices

Stacey, Elizabeth and Gerbic, Philippa 2009, Introduction to blended learning practices. In Stacey, Elizabeth and Gerbic, Philippa (ed), Effective blended learning practices: evidence-based perspectives in ICT-facilitated education, IGI Global, Hershey, Pa., pp.1-19.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-296-1.ch001

©2009, IGI Global

Reproduced with permission.

Downloaded from DRO: http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30020279

Chapter I

Introduction to Blended Learn i ng Practices

ABSTRACT

Elizabeth Stacey Deakin University, Australia

Philippa Gerbic Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Blended learning is now part of the learning landscape in higher education, not just for campus-based courses but for courses designed for students studying at a distance as well as for communities of pro­fessionallearning and practice. The impact of this concept in university teaching and learning can be seen in the appearance of practice focused texts for example, Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) and, more recently, Garrison and Vaughan (2008). Blended learning is now constantly positioned as one of the emerging trends in higher education (e. g. Allen, Seaman and Garrett, 2007; Graham, 2006; Garrison and Kanuka, 2004) and therefore is of particular strategic importance in the future of universities, their students and teachers as well as in the widening community of professional education and training. As an introduction to this book, this chapter will review the growing literature about blended learning and will discuss some of its key issues. The authors begin by introducing the concept of blended learning and its many meanings and attempt to clarifY the dr;ifinitional discussion. Issues in teaching and learn­ing in both campus based and distance settings are then described followed by a discussion of the way blended learning provides a process for establishing communities of learning and practice, particularly for professional learning. Much of the literature about professional learning and learning communities has only just begun to identifY aspects of blended learning practices as significant in their field, a gap this book is helping to fill.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS, DEFINITIONS AND FRAMEWORKS

When writers attemptto define blending learning in a substantive way, the literature is marked by enormous variety in approaches. One of the sim­plest representations is that of the combination of physical and virtual environments, for example, Bleed's (2001) idea of the innovative and interac­tive combinations of "technology, architecture and people" through the right mix of "clicks and bricks" (2001, p.18). Many definitions refer to combining face-to-face and online learning, for example, Graham (2006) who adds a historical perspective to his working definition when he discusses the convergence of two quite separate learning environments. These are traditional face-to-face environments that are essentially synchronous and based on high fidelity human interaction, and distance environments that are asynchronous and have been traditionally reliant on text driven and independent learning. The ad­vent of information communications technology (lCT) has created the potential for. integration of these two systems and hence his preferred and working definition of"combining online and face­to-face instruction" (2006, pA). This integration enabled blends across four key dimensions that Graham (2006) identifies as space, time, fidelity and humanness.

The training sector has claimed the term blended learning for over a decade (Maisie, 2006) and though Cross (2006), also from the corporate training sector, writes that in this context blended learning is only a transitory term, it is a term which has gained ongoing currency and aroused great interest in the higher education sector and appears to be surviving its "buzz word" status and taking "its rightful place as signifying a particular idea or practice" (Mason & Rennie, 2006, p. xvii). Where blended learning was traditionally defi ned as consisting of a face-to-face component followed by an online component, this has changed even in the training sector where Cross (2006) describes

2

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

a local model and a distance model which blend either more or less online interaction with face­to-face meetings with the term denoting flexibility and a range of technology mixes.

Littlejohn and Pegler (2006) explicitly ac­knowledge the role of leT with their concept of 'blended e-Learning' and while they acknowl­edge historical antecedents similar to those of Graham, they present their concept as one with two different components, being e-Learning and blending. This approach enables them to consider each of these concepts separately, thus avoiding the implicit approaches in much ofthe literature i.e. the introduction of an e-Learning activity into a face-to-face setting which is considered as a single phenomenon with little effort being made to distinguish between the issue of e-Learning and that of blending. Littlejohn and Pegler's (2006) identification of these two elements adds clarity to the discussion about blended learning and en­ables better consideration of the complexities of technologies, different settings and learning.

Blended learning can be placed somewhere between fully online and fully face-to-face courses and one of the definitional issues is where this might be on such a continuum. In their report on blended learning in the USA, Allen, Seaman and Garrett (2007) define blended or what is also termed hybrid learning as courses where 30 to 79% of the content is delivered online. While a numeric description seems to offer clarity, this is somewhat dependent on the meaning of"content". Vaughan (2007) and others argue that where an on line element simply supplements a face-to-face course, then this is not blended learning and there must be a reduction in face-to-face time. Littlejohn and Pegler (2007) talk about 'strong" and 'weak" blends (p. 29) where courses are, respectively, al­most exclusively e-Learn ing or contain very little e-Learning, but they do not attempt to quantify this in any way. Garrison and Kanuka (2004) argue that the real indicator of blended learning is not the amount offace-to-face or online learning but their effective integration within a course.

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

Twigg (2003) writing relatively early in the application of blended learning practices to universities, raised the pedagogical issue of the effectiveness of blended learning for all students when she reviewed projects across the United States where institutions were granted large amounts of funding to integrate ICT into their courses. These project outcomes described a range of blended learning practices which varied on a continuum from fully face-to-face to fully online. These projects were categorised as supplemental with traditional class meetings providing additional engagement through online resources and activities, replacement replacing face-to-face classes with online activities and emporium with online resources and activities available on student demand with an expansion of individual instructional assistance particularly through software providing online tutorials, video streamed lectures and other multimedia resources (either mandatory or with open attendance). In the fully online model, instead of a labour intensive approach of individual faculty members creat­ing and supporting all their own small courses, teachers used designed courses and taught with the support of a non academic course assistant so that larger student numbers benefited from the academic teacher (or team of teachers) who was spared the large number of administrative interac­tions. Assessment was handled by software with immediate feedback provided.

Though positive aboutthe changes the projects found such as improved learning outcomes and cost reductions, Twigg acknowledged that despite their redesigning courses, institutions assumed a homogeneity in student needs in these projects apart from the final category the buffet model which offered a range of possible pedagogical choices eg lectures, laboratories, small group sessions, multimedia tutorials, online resources and interaction with students entering an online contract to ensure accountability. Student choices can be supported by online needs assessment and learning style assessment and progress monitored

by the software system. Twigg predicted the value of these blended models but anticipated that if no choice was available, some students would fail.

Definitions like Graham's above are valuable because their genericism gives them broad ap­peal, however they do not adequately address the intricacies and convolutions of blended learning. One approach that does attempt this is that of Garrison and Kanuka (2004) when they describe blended learning as asimple and complex concept. At the simple level, they describe blended learn­ing as "the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences" (2004, p.96). Complexity arises when this idea is put into action and the need to respond to very different settings results in enormous variation in learning design possibili­ties as Gerbic describes in her cross-case analysis in Chapter II. Successful integration requires an understanding of the special characteristics of the Internet, the most desirable aspects of face-to­face teaching and an appropriate mixing of these elements. Garrison and Kanuka (2004) identify particular aspects of the Internet which they re­gard as valuable for blended learning. These are the asynchronous and text based character of the Internet and the synchronous and human pres­ence offace-to-face conversation which together, through their different characters, can support a community of learners. To achieve meaningful learning experiences, courses therefore need to be reconceptualised or reorganised to produce a meaningful learning experience such as through the study described by Simpson and Anderson (Chapter IV), so blended learning is not there­fore an enhancement, an addition or a layering of technology, but a potentially transformative process.

bther later definitional discussions of blended learning include the notion of the flexibility of­fered by blended learning through the use ofICT replacing face-to-face hours on campus. Bleed (2006) reflecting on the research and practice that has occurred since his 2001 article cited above,

3

comments on the growth of interest in blended learning and adds to his definition the replacement of "seat-time" by technology use, as blended learn­ing is more often being provided for students who are demanding more flexibility from fixed class times and on campus attendance. This too is the deft nition used by Hartman, Dzuiban and Brophy­Ellison (2007) and where Garrison and Vaughan (2008) defined blended learning as "thoughtfully" integrating online and face-to face interaction they also included the concept of redesigning courses to reduce on campus classroom hours with replacement online activities (p. 5).

The discussion in the literature indicates that it is very difficult to define blended learning and Mason (2005) makes the very commonsense point that teachers have always engaged in various kinds of blending - adding new information to what students already know, combining theory and practice, listening, reading and writing, and more recently, face-to-face or print and web based experiences. In their review ofblended e-learning, Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts and Francis (2006), reflect times of transition and change, and also acknowledge that blended learning is difficult to define. They however suggest that this is an advantage because it means that academic staff may develop their own meanings which may in­clude both preserving face-to-face teaching and designing for active learning. They also found that students were developing their own concepts of blended learnipg which included holistic views of learning and technology, including the use of their own technologies for learning. This now includes the use of Web2 tools.

Oliver and Trigwell (2005) go further and critique the blended learning concept which they regarded as "ill defined" (2005, p.l7) where "almost anything can be seen as blended learning and consequently, use of the term does not help us understand what is being discussed" (2005, p.18). They identified seven different forms of blending, three of which were likely to ·involve some form ofICT, however, the authors consid-

4

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

ered that they involved concepts that were treated stereotypically and abstractly and did not reflect what occurred in practice. Hence, there were no underlying principles from which to determine what might or might not be blended learning. They also observed that the concept was really focused on what teachers might do pedagogically rather than what students might learn and it was therefore an incomplete account of learning. Oliver and Trigwell (2005) did not consider that the term should be ignored but that it should be reconstructed through the variation theory of learning. This was:

... based on the idea that for learning to occur, variation must be experienced by the learner. Without variation, there is no discernment, and without discernment, there is no learning ... learn­ing occurs when critical aspects of variation in the object of learning are discerned Discernment is about the experience of difference (2005, p.21).

Oliver and Trigwell (2005) emphasize that what was important for learning was the contrast and comparison that arose from the variation, and not the variation itself. They argued that different teaching media could be used to help students experience variation and that there was a role for blended approaches in creating this learning situation. Garrison and Kanuka's (2004) concept of blended learning, with its emphasis on the contrasting characters of synchronicity and asynchronicity and communication through text and human presence may be regarded as an example of variation theory. Further support for the role of variation in learning comes from Wallace (2003) who suggested in his review of computer-mediated conferencing (CMC), that the differences between face-to-face and virtual settings might be more influential for learning than any CMC itself. Geer's framework for Technology-Mediated Interactions (described in Chapter Ill) can help educators align and design their variation taking into consideration either

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

the learning processes, interactive pedagogies or the interactive technologies that can be integrated into the blended learning process.

As well as definitions, the literature now provides a number of conceptual frameworks for blended learning. Some of these models draw on existing frameworks, for example, Donelly's (2006) use of Laurillard's (2002) Conversational model and Motteram's (2006) use of Salmon's (2000) five-level model. The application, adapta­tion and extension of existing frameworks is quite characteristic of an emergent field such as this one, and such works, and those of others like Collis and Moonen (2001) can provide strong foundational support for new thinking about blended learning, particularly within institutional contexts.

Kerres and Witt (2003) presenttheir '3C-didac­tic model' of blended learning which comprises three elements being content (information and its distribution), communication (local or remote and between students, the teacher, individuals or the whole class) and construction (individual or collaborative). In their view, blended learning is about more than combining face-to-face and on­line learning and they stress the different degrees of synchronicity and its impact on students and their learning and advocate that learning designs be created through consideration of the three Cs in conjunction with the costs and benefits of different synchronous and asynchronous media. This model is valuable because it not only works with the variation inherent in synchronous and asynchronous communication but also takes into account their costs and benefits, especially for students.

Shea (2005) provides a more holistic model which is strongly grounded in a discussion of learning, adult learning and learning in technol­ogy-mediated environments. The framework has an epistemological- foundation (2005, p.31) which directs course designers to begin by con­sidering their values, assumptions and beliefs about learning. This is followed by considering theories of learning and instruction, then peda-

gogical approaches, instructional strategies and finally, acts. The strength of this approach is that it acknowledges the role of teacher epistemolo­gies and their influences on course design and the student experience - and this is an aspect of learning frameworks which is often implicit or ignored in the literature.

A different approach has been taken by Little­john and Pegler (2006) with their LD _lite frame­work, which has been developed from a number of empirical studies and aims to enable teachers to work time effectively, reuse their existing re­sources and share their work with colleagues. The framework operates at three levels; (1) a lesson plan template enables teachers to redesign their lessons by considering the activities, who will carry them out (roles) and the resources needed; (2) a "pattern" (2006, p.87), or high level course descriptor enables a quick overview of the course; and (3) a learning design sequence map enables teachers to plan parallel or iterative cycles of learning, including the integration different media and spaces and timeframes. This framework is very grounded and will be attractive to teachers because of its recognition of the realities of prac­tice. It appears to be highly scalable, but is still sufficiently flexible to enable teachers to share their practice, which will be especially valuable in developing an understanding of good practice in media integration and blending.

More recently, Garrison and Vaughan (2008) have presented a comprehensive framework for blended learning which is an application of the Community ofInquiry (Col) concept in a blended setting. Their educational ideal is of an "engaged community of inquiry" (2008, p.10) based on reflection and discourse which is created through social, cognitive and teaching presences (2008, p.IS): They usefully discuss how their framework might be used in three redesign scenarios and it will be reassuring for many to see the way in which they use the face-to-face class to anchor various blending strategies. This framework is valuable because it is derived from a body of substantive

5

research and has had some empirical evaluation. Its very detailed implementation guidelines and professional development model, discussed later in this chapter, mean that it will be of considerable assistance to practitioners.

Macdonald (2006) in writing a practical guide to blended learning for online teachers surveyed

other practitioners online and draws from a self -selected international group of blended learning case studies. She categorised the main components of blended learning as either (1) campus based with a blend of asynchronous interaction provid­ing more flexibility, (2) distance education with a

blend of networking technologies to provide col­laborative and synchronous communication (with occasional possibilities for face-to-face interac­tion), or (3) blended learning courses that offered

interaction between a combined cohort of campus based and distance students. Overwhelmingly the cases she surveyed used learning management systems combined with face-to-face interaction

though there were a range of other synchronous and asynchronous technologies included in the blended learning practices. She .observed that, from her survey few teachers could clearly ar­ticulate whatthe role face-to-face sessions played in blended learning while she identified the main value of these sessions as targeting advice, focus­ing content, brainstorming, pacing of studies and enhancing community. Carvalho, Lustigova and

Lustig (Chapter V) have reported examples of how new technologies have been integrated into this variety of blended learning contexts though in some cases teachers are using the technologies to provide these valuable aspects ofteaching with eg podcasts of adv ice and feedback and technologies that have more innovative capabilities than learn­ing management systems. Wheeler (Chapter VI), in particular, critiques the imposition oflearning management systems (LMS) on the new genera­

tion of students who are embracing personalized mobile technologies and social networking for learning and communication and Trentin, also

6

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

writing in Chapter VI, suggests ways institutions

should support teachers in their introduction of blended learning practices.

ISSUES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Many of the published studies about blended

learning have occurred in campus based courses and have been dominated by student perspectives.

Bliuc, Goodyear, and Ellis (2007) characterise this body of research as exploratory, mostly insider

research with a predominant use of case study methods, which have provided rich descriptions of the processes, complexities and issues arising in particular settings. When we looked at a sample of 18 accounts from the literature from 2003- 2008, all ofthem involved the introduction of some kind

of virtual learning environment, which provided resources and content, and in fifteen of the ac­

counts, online discussions were part ofthe course (for example, Molesworth, 2004; Donelly, 2005; Nel and Wilkinson, 2006 and Tabor, 2007).

In campus based courses, blended learning was often introduced to improve the quality of learning and student engagement and a typical example is that of Ramsey's (2003) work. She was concerned about the dominance ofteachers in much face-to-face learning and the ensuing passivity of undergraduate students, and argued thatthe addition of virtual learning environments

could reshape learning relations between teachers and students. By reducing lectures, emphasiz­

ing web supported materials and activities, and using more social and collaborative activities

and assessment she sought to make her students more active and less passive. In her view, learn­

ing which worked with the zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) provided a far more useful learning framework than andragogy, because development was regarded as a series of performances through different levels rather than

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

being purely based on a concept of adult maturity, which many undergraduates lacked.

Ramsey (2003) illustrates a teacher perspective that is focused on innovation and the scholarly improvement of learning. Like her, Garrison and Kanuka (2004) question the 'dominance of the lecture' (p.100), especially if blended learning is to have any transformative impact in universities. However, the literature also indicates other teacher views which are associated with the changes in role and possible identity that arise with blended learning. In a phenomenological study of early adopter teachers ofiCT by McShane (2004), the teachers were generally very positive about the inclusion of online learning, however, one of the main findings endorsed the "centrality of lec­turing" (p.12). By lecturing, the teachers "kept themselves central to their students' learning, but they also appeared to be retain ing an event which symbolizes and defines the role and authority of the traditional university lecturer" (McShane, 2004, p.12). Commeauxand McKenna (2005) document other concerns of staff aboutthe addition of online learning, particularly the impact of the reduc­tion of the richness of the face-to-face learning and deprivation of meaningful interaction with peers. This research identifies significant issues for blended learning which must be addressed by universities in the future.

Several studies comparing online and fa,ce-to­face teaching experiences examined the merits of both (Curtis, 2002; Cragg, Dunning & Ellis, 2008) and some concluded that a blended envi­ronment using the advantages of both modes was the best outcome for ongoing practice (Stacey & Wiesenberg, 2007; Heaton-Shrestha, Edirisingha, Burke & Linsey, 2005). These latter studies iden­tified teachers' reports of the positive influence of online use on their face-to-face teaching but also of the workload increase often involved in using the online medium.

Vignare's (2006) survey of the literature indi­cates that teacher satisfaction is tied to being able to choose to introduce blended learning as opposed

to being required to do so. The other important factor she identified is teachers' preparedness to add online learning to their face-to-face course, which was particularly dependent on adequate pedagogical and technological support and suf­ficient time to develop an understanding of the new environment. Other influential factors were recognition of blended learning developments in promotion and recognition of research in insti­tutional research cultures that valued discipline more than teaching research. Vaughan (2007) supports these points of view in his discussion of faculty perspectives on the benefits and challenges of blended learning. Staff considered that the main benefits were enhanced teacher and student interaction (with reduced face-to-face contact), increased student engagement, more flexibility and an environment of continuous improvement. The challenges were similarto those identified by Vignare (2006) that is, time, professional develop­ment and concerns about losing control over the course and the place of blended learning within a university culture. Samarawickrema describes a detailed case study that discusses these aspects in Chapter XII.

Many of the teaching and learning accounts have provided insights into the ways in which variation might be used to improve blended learn­ing, especially by documenting how researchers have worked with the differences between the two environments. Osguthorpe and Graham (2003) discuss the ways in which the strengths and weaknesses of the face-to- face paradigm can complement the strengths and weaknesses of the distance paradigm and see the goal of blended learning as a "harmonious balance" (2003, p.228) of the two environments, which is dependent on the course goals, needs of the student, teacher's focus and the online resources available.

A good source of information about the strengths and weakness of the two environments can be found in the online discussion literature. Substantive works in th is area are those ofTienne (2000), Arbaugh (2000) and Meyer (2004), all of

7

which have used survey methods to investigate postgraduate students' views in the USA. Research by Gerbic (2006) into the differences between online and face-to-face discussions indicates three major areas of difference, which result in strengths and weakness which may appeal to dif­ferent learning needs and course goals:

1. The presence or absence of phatic (visual/au­ral) cues which provides (a) a rich nonverbal communication environment, with high levels of monitoring and feedback, where conversation is competitive and requires confidence, especially to disagree and it is easier to build rapport and trust or (b) a more impersonal medium with reduced phatic, and social cues, where messages are more difficult to understand, where there is less social cohesion eg less responsibility for the conversation, but also freer commun ication for some participants.

2. Synchronous and asynchronous timing which provide either (a) rapid spontaneous and free flowing dialogue, generally on one subject, at a particular time and place or (b) space to reflect and think at one's own pace, on multiple subjects, but often taking more time.

3. Speech and text-based communication where (a) the emphasis is on listening and talking, communication is quick and easy for confident speakers of the language and ephemeral and (b) the emphasis is on reading and writing, so there is a record, so messages are often carefully thought out and written, although participation takes time and can result in information overload.

The benefits of working with the special char­acteristics of both environments was demonstrated in Rovai and Jordan's (2004) comparative analysis of fully online, blended and fully face-to-face courses. Students in the blended course" created the strongest sense of community, as evidenced

8

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

by higher connectedness and mean learning scores and the researchers ascribed this to the convenience of fully online courses and the role offace-to- face contact in nurturing community. A further example of this complementarity is found in the work of Lynch and Dembo (2004) who were investigating self-regulation in blended contexts. They found that face-to-face classes improved motivation, and ameliorated the need for high levels of individual autonomy, time management and Internet self-efficacy. Lynch and Denbo therefore recommend face-to-face settings for at risk students. This would suggest that where students may have low self-regulation, for example, first year students, then careful po­sitioning of face-to-face contact within a course could be advantageous. Nel and Wilkinson (2006) provide a six-point action plan which particularly considers the role of face-to-face sessions for undergraduates with little or no online, Internet or collaborative experience.

In their evaluation of the introduction of a virtual learning environment (VLE) into a campus based university, Aspden and Helm (2004) argue that the different characteristics of such an envi­ronment can change relations between students and their teachers, peers and the university by increasing connectedness, both physically and virtually. It is commonly assumed that campus­based programmes enable high levels of interac­tion, but for students who work or have family responsibilities or who are shy, this is not always the case and virtual environments offer other op­portunities for this. Molesworth's (2004) study of third year undergraduates offers a critique of this view when he found that while the students liked the flexibility of a VLE, their low participation indicated to him that what they actually liked was the flexibility to do nothing and neglect this mode of learning.

One theme that is evident in the blended learning literature is the importance of paying attention to the learning design. In a comparison of four communication settings and four tasks,

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

Schweizer, Paechter and Weidenmann (2003) found that achievement does not depend solely on the setting and the nature and demands of the learning activity was highly significant. In his description of a blended course, Boyle (2005) advocates for a pedagogically driven model where every element of the blend is justified according to the course outcomes and needs of the learners. Donelly (2005) provides a good example of this with her use of La uri I lard's Conversational model as a basis for blending the face-to-face and online phases of a constructivist and problem-based learning approach. Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) have found that students' approaches to learning are relational, that is they are dependent on their perceptions ofthe learning activity and its general context, for example, assessment, workload, the role and actions of the teacher and the course or discipline practices. The challenge for teachers is to ensure that the messages that students receive about a blended course coincide with teachers' intentions. To enable this, a blended environment needs to be embedded within the learning design and coherent with all aspects of that design in a way that students understand. Gunn and Blake extend this focus on design for blended learning in Chapter XIV describing their design based research.

There is less explicit consideration of blended learning in distance settings in the literature. This occurs because it has established history in distance education (Moore, 2005) where it has long been the practice to include periods of residenceatacampus for face-to-face interaction, or to provide face -to-face interaction regionally through the use of various local universities or centres. Moore (2005) positions face-to-face as a communication technique and does not endow it with any special mystique. He argues that its relative expense means that it should be carefully used and substituted when there are other effective but less costly approaches. However in introducing Bonk and Graham's (2006) "Handbook of Blended Learning," Moore explains how teachers "letting

go" responsibilities in their traditional face-to­face role and integrating the pedagogical choices of distance learning can actually provide better learning because through blend ing text, recorded or interactive audio or visual media with face-to face interaction we are providing a response to the diversity of learn ing styles of students.

The flexibility, access and potential for reduced costs that have been the rationale for distance education for decades are found to motivate the use of blended learning in many cases (Graham, Allen & Ure, 2005). Dziuban, Hartman and Moskal (2004) also noted that in blending online interaction with face-to-face classes, there was a reduction in time spent in the classroom thus describing blended learning as a form of flexible learning -providing students with a means of learning flexibly in the way distance education has provided flexibility in the past. The introduction to university campuses oflearning management systems (LMS) or virtual learning systems (VLE) as they are also termed, has meant classes can use this system as a way of extending and replacing their face-to-face interaction with online interac­tion. Aspden & Helm (2004) are among teachers who have used and researched the use of blended learning to provide such flexibility. They describe such a project at Sheffield Hallam University in the United Kingdom which introduced blended learning and found that it maintained students' engagement with their courses despite their hav­ing part-time employment or being off-campus to participate in a practical placement related to their course.

In the literature, there are some accounts of distance education that have specifically focused on blended learning. Denis (2003) provides a de­scription of a postgraduate distance programme which applied Carre and Pearns (1992) self-di­rected model in fully online, blended and fully face-to-face contexts. Macdonald and McAteer (2003) discuss different learner support models in distance and campus-based courses and then compare approaches with different media blends

9

for learner support. Dron, Seidel and Litten (2004) discuss the development and implementation of a blended learning course and analyse this process using Moore's theory of transactional distance. Jelfs Nathan and Barrett's (2004) paper discusses the introduction of a web based study skills tool kit with the intention of blending (electronic) learning into students busy lives. Ausburn (2004) investigated design elements that adult learners found most useful in blended online environ­ments. What is notable about these reports is the breadth and diversity of their focus, especially their concepts of blending which appear to be much wider than those of campus based courses. This would suggest that the practice of blending is well embedded within distance education and Moore (2006) endorses th is when he draws atten­tion to the importance of understanding research and practice in the distance field for application to new forms of practice such as blended learning.

The literature to date indicates that attention in the teaching and learning area of blended environ­ments has focused on understanding the aspects of the virtual and physical environ~ents which are valuable for learning and how to integrate them so that they work in a complementary fashion. Recently, Bluic et al (2007) have acknowledged that there is a tension between understanding the different parts of blended learning and viewing it as a whole system. They argue that the focus now should be on coherence and alignment, on creating a more holistic experience for students and understanding the complexity of blended learning from a broader and more systematic. This will require a wider range of research methods, particularly those that are complementary.

BLENDED LEARNING PRACTICES FOR PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

As evidenced above, the literature on blended learning and teaching is growing and being iden­tified more explicitly as its value is recognized.

10

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

However there appears to be an assumption that teachers will just know how to blend online and face-to-face learning and teaching processes and the emphasis in the professional learning litera­ture has been on ways of teaching the skills of online teaching and reflecting on the changes to learning that this may introduce. Though more studies are describing blended learning practices in more detail with diagrams and formulae of online and face-to-face combinations suggested, models for professional learning are less widely reported in the literature. The concept of com­munity has become popular in researching student collaborative learning online, but is also less specifically reported as a means of introducing blended learning or of using blended learning practices to developing online communities for teachers. The literature about such professional learning that is reviewed below has been more difficult to locate and at times we identified a blended process in reports designated as online learning but which were in fact describing blended learning practices. We view professional learning as having two dimensions, one that we define as theoretically based professional learning that encourages reflection on teaching and learning within philosophical frameworks and particularly through communities of peers, and professional development for skills training which we perceive as more teacher directed, short-term and specific in purpose. The chapters in the second and third sections of this book provide detailed data con­cerning both dimensions of professional learning that is for blended learning and through the use of blended learning.

Though Bonk and Graham (2006) gathered a wide range of examples of the implementation of blended learning practices in corporate train­ing, particularly in the Information Technology industry and relying strongly on web-based learning resources (e.g., Lewis & Orton, 2006; Chute, Williams & Hancock, 2006), Hofman (2006) also writing in their "Handbook of Blended Learning" claimed that the training sector, which

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

has discussed using blended learning practices over a long period, has not fulfilled its promise. She explains that programs are not necessarily designed specifically for the blended environ­ment and they overemphasised the face-to-face component. This follows from the fact that fewer teachers were trained in facilitating interaction through ICT and there was also little preparation for online learners.

Studies of the blended learning model estab­lished attheOpen University of Shell International Exploration and Production (Margaryan, Collis and Cook, 2004; Collis, Bianco, Margaryan, & Waring, 2005) straddle the training and higher education fields in providing corporate profes­sional learning and accredited academic quali­fications through a blended learning process. In discussing their research into the model they acknowledge that a sound blended learning process should include more than use of web­based resources or training modules and should involve an application oflearningto the learner's workplace and a collaborative sharing of this ap­plication through social interaction. Their model draws on experienced facilitators and reusable digital objects but stresses the importance of the interpersonal contact between all actors in the blended learning process.

As the higher education sector takes up blended learning, there has been an assumption that blended learning practices will involve a blend of the best of face-to-face and online learning but is that necessarily so? To ensure that such competent design and instruction will deliver the best aspects of both, the blended learning process is being used in many institutions as a means of providing professional learning for academic staff involved in teaching in this mode. Fitzigibbon & Jones (2004) at the University of Glamorgan in Wales, described their university's training of e-moderators which they adjusted, on participants' advice, from a fully online model to a blended model which they found introduced an important social dimension as a local community

was formed face-to-face. Dziuban, Hartman, Juge, Moskal and Sorg (2006) describe the professional development of faculty members at the Univer­sity of Central Florida as an "authentic blended learning experience" (p. 199) combining online modules, on campus classes, labs and invidividual consultations. They find this model is transforma­tive as academic staffwith instructional designers as their teachers form supportive teams as they develop their technological and pedagogical skills, support which continues as they implement their new blended learning practices. (The reciprocal mentoring process reported by Robertshaw et al. in Chapter XVI could also provide an effective model through a blended learning environment for professional learning in such teams of design­ers and teachers). Lindquist (2006) describes a process of professional development of teachers at the University of Phoenix who are being pre­pared to manage blended learning environments through training in a 4-week course in a similar environment. They are encouraged to develop presentation skills in a face-to-face classroom and more reflective skills in their asynchronous online discussions that Lindquist says "capitalizes on the strengths of each" (p. 231), a conclusion which more institutions are drawing from this mode.

Vaughan and Garrison (2005) researched the use of blended learning in training the teachers at the University of Calgary through a combina­tion of face-to-face and online learning. They applied the analysis tools developed through the Community of Inquiry model through research into online learning analysing online discussions and the components that made up such online communities (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Their objective was to "create and sustain cognitive presence in a blended learning context for the development of an effective and meaningful fac­ulty learning community" (Vaughan & Garrison, 2005, p. 3). Through comparing the indicators of cognitive presence in the face-to-face and online experiences, they were able to analyse what was achieved in each aspect of the blended learning

11

process and to develop a successful community of inquiry.

Garrison and Vaughan's (2008) discussion of the transformation of education through blended learning relies on a better model of professional learning by teachers. In acknowledging the im­portance of professional development for teachers adopting blended learning practices, they have devised their design principles for establishing social and cognitive presence in a blended learn­ing community with sufficient teaching presence to facilitate cognitive inquiry as best learned in a community of inquiry for faculty members. Instead of traditional workshops for learning any new technological or pedagogical skills, they found that establishing a sustained community for ongoing critical reflection and discussion about one's own practice is a more effective and transformative model. In an interesting change from the usual model of support for curriculum redesign, they describe the Un iversity of Calgary's process of combining successful applicants for course redesign into a community of inquiry that includes a number of other univer~ity representa­tives from library, ICT and learning centres with academic staff as mentors as well as students who can provided a range of perspectives. This mode of blended learning practice involves an initial face-to-face meeting followed by' online discussions about project plans and implementa­tion with carefully designed processes, facilita­tion and resource support. They advise that this community should progress for a minimum of six months with participants experiencing blended learning practices from a student perspective. They describe the face-to-face meetings as help­ing to "establish the rhythm for the community" (p. 58) with the online discussion for reflective commentary and they suggest that the flexibility of the blended learning process be used to provide ICT facilitated education whether face-to-face attendance is possible or not by recording face­to-face meetings with tools such as Elluminate Live for later streaming and podcasting.

12

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

In describing their community of inquiry model, their belief that education is most effec­tive through such a community strengthens the value of blended learning which they claim has the capacity to develop an even stronger com­munitythrough face-to face meetings. In Chapter XIII Wilson supports the notion of a blended learning approach to professional learning as she acknowledges the limited success when online conferencing and web based resources alone are used. The limited purpose and timespan of an educational community means that faster community establishment through face-to-face meeting is a distinct advantage of blended learn­ing. However, as with Wiesenberg and Stacey's (Chapter XI) findings, teachers are aware of a tendency to dominate in face-to-face interaction whereas in online discussion, this is more learner centred and individually reflective, the cognitive presence that Garrison and Vaughan seek. A face­to-face meeting in the blended learning process allows for social presence and collaboration to be established, online interaction allows forreflection and cognitive critique.

ESTABLISHING COMMUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Communities are traditionally groups of people drawn together through face-to-face interaction to meet a common purpose or shared need, particu­larly in a professional context. Since the advent of information and communication technologies that link people, especially via the internet, the capability of communities formingthrough virtual networking has been enthusiastically predicted and pursued (Palloff & Pratt, 2005). Research into online communities for education and for profes­sionallearning has produced studies advocating the power of online communities (Lewis& Allen, 2005; McConnell, 2006). A subtextto these studies has been the suggestion that such communities form more quickly and set up trust and social presence ifparticipants meet face-to-face at some

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

stage or at least through a technologically aided meeting, particularly at initial community forma­tion and are able to communicate synchronously as well as asynchronously (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Such blended communities are being advocated more and more as the most effective model for professional learn­ing. Few communities in current times would not draw on electronic communication and resources as a component of their practice and though the literature has begun to provide accounts of the blended learning practices of these communities, the value of the blended learning processes has not readily been identified or specifically investigated for its impact on professional learning.

Though much of the discussion of communities has focused on the workplace, with communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) analysed as power­ful informal and formal learning communities that exist amongst workers engaged in common workplaces and enterprises, the more pervasive use of ICT in workplaces has meant these com­munities have embraced blended learning prac­tices combining face-to-face interaction with technologically mediated commun ication (Robey, Khoo & Powers, 2000). While transferring the notion of communities to an online environ­ment has been extensively investigated by adult educators (Kimble, Hidreth and Wright, 2000; Rogers, 2000; Bird, 2001), their sustainability for learning has raised some doubts which may well apply to their use for professional learning as when Connery and Hasen (2005) claim that "the continued viable existence of the online commu­nity is the most realistic measure of its success" (p.249). Wilson, Ludwig-Hardman, Thornam, and Dunlap (2004) published an investigation into the constraints of forming online learning communities within university courses which could only develop "bounded communities" of a typical semester length course wherein communi­ties are bounded by time constraints of a semester as well as being bounded by the requirements of the course and are therefore unlikely to remain

ongoing. Though there can be a more natural development of communities of practice in the workplaces that Lave and Wenger (1 991 ) observed, in higher education academic teachers are often teaching independently with little opportunity for such communities to spontaneously develop. Time constraints and lack of ongoing purpose after specific learning needs are fulfilled also affect learning communities that are established for professional development and in their chapter describing the attempts of professional develop­ment centres to establish communities of practice, Thompson and Kanuka (Chapter VIII) identify the difficulty of sustaining community engagement as one for which a blended learning process may provide a solution.

Though in their well designed and recognized study of blended learning compared to face-to­face and online learning, Rovai and Jordan (2004) were able to claim that those learning in blended mode possessed a higher sense of community connectedness and, more importantly, learned more effectively than through the other modes of learning, they concluded that "within each type of course, sense of community among students is likely to co-vary based on the values and abilities of the professor" (p. 7). They found that establish­ing an effective sense of community worked well face-to-face and if teachers were skilled both with supporting students technologically and in com­municating and facilitating well online, blended learning practices provided the best process for a sustained environment. Smith, Stacey and Ha (Chapter VII) and Riverin (Chapter X) describe use of communities for professional learning in several different blended settings, both formal and informal, and similarly identified aspects such as quality of facilitation and relevance of community purpose as factors in sustainability and effectiveness.

The type and purpose of the learning com­munity, whether forming spontaneously and in­formally, or through courses bounded by semester timing, would appear to be most important yet

13

discussion of online communities are sometimes grouped together as if they all function similarly. Lewis & Allen (2005) provide what they term a "loose" definition of a learning community that in­cludes formal learning courses and more informal learning communities as well as communities of practice to which they ascribe attributes of a pro­fessional context as defined by Lave and Wenger (1991). They define a learning community very widely as "a supportive group of people who come together to collaborate and learn together, they are usually facilitated or guided to achieve a specific outcome or agreed learning objectives" (Lewis & Allen, 2005, p. 9). They describe the growth in use of virtual learning communities that are centred on online communication but they acknowledge that many such communities meet face-to-face in a blended learning approach and claim that participants rate such blended communities more highly than fully online communities and that most of their cited examples of virtual learning communities use blended learning approaches. In describing the explosion in growth and changes in knowledge and knowledge management in the corporate sector, they predict that virtual learn ing communities are a yet to be fully exploited as a means of continuous professional development. Their book provides a manual for developing and facilitating such communities but though provid­ing advice about online structure and activities it gives little practical advice for the use of the face-to-face component in the blended learning process which seems to be left to the community to devise.

Similarly, Preece, Abras and Maloney-Krich­mar (2004) "use the term 'online community' broadly to refer to all communities that have some kind of on line presence" (p. 3) and include blended communities with fully online communities in their broad categorization but Carlen and Jobring (2005) have developed a typology of online com­munities which carefully differentiates online and blended communities as well as differentiating these communities as either educational, profes-

14

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

sional or with a common interest as purpose. Most of the communities discussed in the section on Establishing communities (Chapters VII-X) ofthis book fit the blended professional communities of the typology which Carlen and Jobring claim are "a prevalent form of community using the inter­net and ICT for their work-integrated learning in connection with educational purposes" (p. 289).

Goodfellow (2005), critiques "the ideological dimension" of the marketing of online learning communities which institutions are claiming democratise the learning process and bring an equality to the online community that may not exist in the real community. He, too, places im­portance on carefully distinguishing between the purposes and structure of communities from the decentralised communities (such as those that arise between computer technologists sharing new information or resources), course related communities and professional development com­munities within organizations or for civic learning and highlights the inter-relationship between the online community and the localised community of practice of participants that appears to be a positive outcome of its use. Smith, Stacey and Ha (Chapter VII) researched this inter-relationship in several different settings and found that if well facilitated and purposeful it could provide a model for professional learning. Mackey's research, reported in Chapter IX, suggests ways that the application of professional learning through the online community can be effectively applied to local communities of practice and may provide the blended approach needed.

The use of blended learning practices in estab­lishing communities for professional learning and practice are gradually becoming recognized as effective strategies. The possibilities of a blended learning community for departmental interac­tion and professional learning are described in detail by Chu and Hernandez-Carrion (2005) who diagram a community that can blend leT with a "physical mode" (p. 78) to develop a more vibrant and cost-effective culture for all aspects

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

of academic work including research, teaching

and service embedded in a web-based resource and communication base. Applebee, Ellis and Sheely (2004) applied a similar approach in their development of a blended community of faculty representatives who acted as leaders in lCT use and met on-campus and online, also drawing on a range of online resources. As Thompson and

Kanuka (Chapter VIII) advise, institutional sup­port of blended learning practices in such com­munities of practice can facilitate their emergence

and sustainability.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has reviewed the literature about blended learning and analysed the evidence base through the research conducted and published at

the time of writing. In the area of teaching and learning, the literature indicates that there is now a substantial and growing knowledge about pedagogical and associated issues. In the areas of professional learning and establishing com­

munities to support such learning, the blending of face-to-face and online environments has different

dimensions. In this introductory chapter we have attempted to review these and to draw out the key issues as they currently stand. The following chap­ters extend this discussion through their authors' research and application to practice.

REFERENCES

A lIen, K., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blend­ing in. The extent and promise ofblended educa­tion in the United states: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved 4 Jan 2008 from http://www.blend­

edteaching.org/speciaIJeport_ blending_ in.

Applebee, A. C., Ellis, R. C., & Sheely, S. D. (2004). Developing a blended learning commu­

nity at the University of Sydney: Broadening the

comfort zone. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference 5-8 December, Perth. Retrieved 5 April 2007 from http://www.

ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/apple­bee.html

Arbaugh, J. (2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous Internet-based MBA course. Jour­nal of Management Education, 24(2),213-233.

Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Develop­ment, 41(3),245-252.

Ausburn, L. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspec­tive. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327-337.

Bird, L. (2001). Virtual learning in the workplace: the power of'communities of practice '. Paper pre­sented at the Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceed­ings of the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, December 9-12, Melbourne.

Bliuc, A, Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Re­search focus and methodological choices in studies into student's experiences of blended learning.

Internet and Higher Education, 10(4),231-244.

Bleed, R. (2001). A hybrid campus for the new millennium. Educause, Jan/Feb, 17-24.

Bleed, R. (2006). The IT leader as alchemist: Finding the true gold. EDUCAUSE review, Janu­ary/February, 33-42.

Bonk, C. 1., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspec­tives, local designs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

15

Boyle, T. (2005). A dynamic systematic method for developing blended learning. Education Com­munication and Information, 5(3), 221-232.

Carlen, u., & Jobring, O. (2005). The rationale of online learning communities. International Jour­nal of Web Based Communities, 1(3),272-295.

Chu, C. M., & Hernandez-Carrion, I R. (2006). Harnessing ICT to develop community and identity: a model for academic departments. In­ternational Journal of Web Based Communities, 2(1), 70-80.

Chute, A.G., Williams, IO.D. & Hancock, B.W. (2006). Transformation of sales skills through knowledge management and blended learning. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs(pp. 105-119). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Collis, B., Bianco, M., Margaryan, A., & Waring, B. (2005). Putting Blended Learning to Work: a case study from a multinational oil company. Education, Communication & In/ormation, 5(3), 233-250.

Collis, B., & Moonen, I (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Comeaux, P., & McKenna-Byington, E. (2003). Computer-mediated communication in online and conventional classrooms: Some implications for instructional design and professional develop­ment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 348-355.

Connery, A., & Hasan, H. (2005). Social and commercial sustainabilityofregional web-based communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(3), 246-261.

Cragg, C. E., Dunning, I, & Ellis, J. (2008). Teacher and student behaviours in face-to-face and on-line courses: dealing with complex concepts. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), f-13.

16

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

Cross, J. (2006). Foreword In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learn­ing: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. xvii -xxiii). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Curtis, R. (2002). Teaching research methods online: course development and comparison to traditional delivery. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Educa­tion International Conference 2002 pp.l41-145). Norfolk VA: AACE.

Denis, B. (2003). A conceptual framework to design and support self-directed learning in a blended learning programme. A case study: the DES-TEF Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 115-127.

Donelly, R. (2006). Blended problem-based learning for teacher education: Lessons learned. Learning. media and technology, 31(2),93-116.

Dron, I, Seidel, C., & Litten, G. (2004). Trans­actional distance in a blended learning environ­ment. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 163-174.

Dzuiban, C., Hartman, I, Juge, F., Moskal, P. & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspec­tives, local designs (pp. 195-208). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, lL. & Moskal, P. D. Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Research Bul­letin 7, 1-12.

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understand­ing student learning. Croom Helm Ltd, Kent.

Fitzgibbon, K.M. & Jones, N. (2004). Jumping hurdles: challenges of staff development del ivered in a blended learning environment. Journal of Educational Media, 29(1), 25-35.

Garrison, D. R. & Anderson T. (2003).E-learning in the 21 century: Aframeworkfor research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

Garrison, R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Educa­tion, 7(2),95-105.

Garrison, R., & Vaughan, H. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey­Bass.

Gerbic, P. (2006). On-campus students' learning in asynchronous environments. Unpublished doc­toral thesis. Deakin University, Australia.

Goodfellow, R. (2005). Virtuality and the shaping of educational communities. Education, Com­munication & Information, 5(2), 113-129.

Graham, C. (2006). Blended learning systems. Definitions, current trends and future directions. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Graham, C. R., Allen, S. & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of in­formation science and technology (pp. 253-259). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Heaton-Shrestha, C., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L. & Linsey, T. (2005). Introducing a VLE into campus­

based undergraduate teaching: Staff perspectives on its impact on teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(6), 370-386.

Hofmann, 1. (2006). Why blended learning hasn't (yet) fulfilled its promises: Answers to those questions that keep you up at night. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 27-40). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Jelfs, A., Nathan, R., & Barrett, C. (2004). Scaf­folding students: Suggestions on how to equip students with the necessary study skills for

studying in a blended environment. Journal of Educational Media, 29(2), 85-96.

Kerres, M., & De witt, C. (2003). A didactic framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 101-112.

Kimble, C., Hidreth, P., & Wright, P. (2000). Communities of practice: going virtual. In Y. Malhotra (Ed.), Knowledge management and business model innovation (pp. 216-230). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teach­ing: Aframeworkfor the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Lave, 1., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lindquist, B. (2006). Blended learning at the University of Phoenix. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 223-234). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparingfor Blended e-Learning. London: Routledge.

Ludwig-Hartman, S., & Dunlap, 1. (2003). Learner support services for online students: scaffolding for success. International Review of Research in OpenandDistanceLearning, 4(1). Retrieved on 10 February 2008 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.

php/irrodl/article/view/1311211

Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved on 1 February, 2008 from http://www. irrodl.org/index.php/irrodllarticle/view/1891271

Lewis, D., & Allen, B. (2005). Virtual leaning communities: A guide for practitioners. Maid­enhead, UK: Open University Press.

17

Lewis, N. 1., & Orton, P. Z. (2006). Blended learn­ing in business impact: IBM's case for learning success. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspec­tives, local designs (pp. 61-75). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Mason, R. (2005). Guest editorial. Education, Communication and Information, 5(3),217-220.

Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2006). Elearning: The key concepts. London: Routledge.

Macdonald, 1., & McAteer, E. (2003). New ap­proaches to supporting students: Strategies for blended learning in distance and campus-based environments. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 129-146.

Macdonald, 1. (2006). Blended learning and online tutoring: A good practice guide. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing Limited.

Margaryan, A., Collis, B. & Cooke, A. (2004). Ac­tivity-based blended learning. Human Resource Development International, 7(2), 265-274.

McConnell, D. (2006). E-learning groups and communities. Berkshire: Open University Press.

McShane, K. (2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics' role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1),3 -14.

Maisie, E. (2006). The blended learning impera­tive. In C. 1. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspec­tives, local designs (pp. 22-26). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Meyer, K. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussion: The role of time and higher order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.

Molesworth, M. (2004). Collaboration, reflection and selective neglect: Campus-based marketing

18

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

students' experiences of using a virtual learn­ing environment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 41(1), 79-92.

Moore, M. (2005). Editorial. The American Jour­nal of Distance Education, 19(3), 129-132.

Moore, M. (2006). Foreword. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learn­ing: Global perspectives, local designs. San Fransisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Motteram, G. (2006). 'Blended' education and the transformation of teachers: A long-term case study in postgraduate UK Higher Educa­tion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), \7-30.

Nel, L., & Wilkinson, A. (2006). Enhancing col­laborative learning in a blended learning environ­ment: applying a process planning model. Systems Practice Action Research, 19, 553-576.

Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can 'blended learning' be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 17-26.

Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C. (2003). Blended Learning Environments. Definitions and Direc­tions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Educa­tion, 4(3), 227-233.

Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Preece, 1., Abras, C.,& Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2004). Designing and evaluating online com­munities: research speaks to emerging practice. International Journal of Web Based Communi­ties, 1(1), 2-18.

Ramsey, C. (2003). Using virtual learning environ­ments to facilitate new learning relationships. The InternationaUournal of Management Education, 3(2),31 - 4l.

Robey, D., Khoo, H. M., & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual

Introduction to Blended Learning Practices

teams. IEEE Transaction on Professional Com­munication, 51-66.

Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: a framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 384-392.

Rovai, A., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: a comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2) Retrieved on 2 February, 2008 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/ir­rodllarticle/viewI192/274

Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Schweizer, K., Paechter, M., & Weidenmann, B. (2003). Blended Learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task performance. Journal of Edu­cational Media, 28(2-3),211-224.

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended learning: A review of UK literature and practice. Retrieved on I February, 2008 from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/projects/detail/ Ir _ 2006_ sharpe

Shea, P. (2006). Towards a conceptual framework for learning in blended environments. In A. Pic­ciano & C. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning. ResearchPerspectives. United States of America: The Sloan Consortium.

Stacey, E. & Wiesen berg, F. (2007). A Study of Face-to-Face and Online Teaching Philosophies in Canada and Australia. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 19-40.

Tabor, S. (2007). Narrowing the distance: Imple­menting a hybrid learning model for information security education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1),47-57.

Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4),371-384.

Twigg, C. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: models for online learning. EDUCAUSE review (September/October), 29-38.

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

Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty develop­ment community. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1-12.

Vignare, K. (2006). Review ofliterature. Blended learning: Using ALN to change the classroom - will it work for you? In M. Pittinsky & C. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives. United Sates of America: The Sloan Consortium.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The De­velopment of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, B., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C. & Dunlap, J. (2004). Bounded community: De­signing and facilitating learning communities in formal courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3), 1-22.

19