Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
1
Running Head: RESEARCH IN BLENDED LEARNING
The following is a draft version from a chapter soon to be printed in the Blended Learning:
Research Perspectives II.
Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing
models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G.
Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended
learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Developing Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
Charles R. Graham
Curtis R. Henrie
Andrew S. Gibbons
Brigham Young University
Contact:
Charles R. Graham
Department of Instructional Psychology & Technology
Brigham Young University
(801) 422-4110
charles.graham@byu.edu
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
2
Developing Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
Charles R. Graham
Curtis R. Henrie
Andrew S. Gibbons
Brigham Young University
He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and
compass and never knows where he may cast.
Leonardo DaVinci
1. The Need for Blended Learning Models and Theory
Developing models and theory is essential to the knowledge creation process. Models
and theory by their very nature attempt to establish a common language and focus for the
activities that take place in a scholarly community (Dubin, 1976). Burkhardt and Schoenfeld
(2003) claimed that a “reasonably stable theory base . . . allows for a clear focus on important
issues and provides sound (though still limited) guidance for the design of improved solutions to
important problems” (p. 6). Well-established scholarly domains have common terminology and
widely accepted models and theories that guide inquiry and practice, while researchers in less
mature domains struggle to define terms and establish relevant models.
Limited efforts have been made to understand the development and use of theory in the
domain of blended learning research (Drysdale et al., 2013; Graham, 2013; Halverson, 2012).
Blended learning research, though relatively new, is related to both educational technology
research and distance education research (the former often focuses on contexts where teacher and
learner are co-located and the latter on contexts where teacher and learner are separated in space
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
3
and time). For several decades educational technology as a field has struggled to find its
theoretical roots (McDougall & Jones, 2006; Roblyer, 2005; Roblyer & Knezek, 2003). Most
recently, a broad theoretical framework referred to as technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) has gained some traction (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Similarly some
researchers in distance education have lamented the lack of research focus on theory (Moore,
2004). However, several prominent theories, such as transactional distance (Moore, 2013),
community of inquiry (Garrison et al., 2000), interaction equivalency (Simonson et al., 1999),
etc., are now driving the research questions and conversations.
This chapter does not seek to create new theory, but rather to understand and document
the nature of the blended learning models and theories that are currently being developed through
research. This synthesis will identify the strengths and limitations of the models and theories
being developed and integrated in the blended learning research domain. This understanding can
guide us in the selection and development of future models and theories.
2. Model and Theory Development in Design Fields
The definition of model and theory has been a source of debate. Some scholars have
noted the interchangeable use of the terms (Dubin, 1976; Kaplan, 1964; Sutton & Staw, 1995;
Whetten, 1989), while others have argued for clearer distinctions (Dickmeyer, 1989; Kaplan,
1964; Merton, 1967). We acknowledge that many researchers may prefer to use the term model
because of the privileged status scientists associate with the term theory. This chapter will treat
the terms model and theory as two ends of a continuum. Whetten (1989) made the case that good
social science theory is built upon
•
the what (variables/factors),
•
the how (relationship between variables/factors),
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
•
the why (underlying rationale justifying the what and how), and
•
the who, where, when (context in which the theory is applicable).
4
The literature seems to agree that good theory creates an argument that clearly addresses
the why undergirding the relationships it presents (Kaplan, 1964; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Whetten,
1989). Perhaps a distinction between what we feel comfortable calling a model vs. a theory lies
in the strength of its argument (the why) and evidence supporting the claims (relationship
between the what and how). As research data accumulate and arguments become more robust,
researchers are more willing to refer to a model as a theory.
Educational research includes two major types of theory: technological (or design) and
scientific. In Sciences of the Artificial, Herbert Simon (1999) distinguished between design fields
(e.g., engineering, business, education, architecture, etc.) and the sciences, contrasting their
processes for creating knowledge. While both design and science fields focus on systems (often
the same systems), they try to solve different problems and generate different kinds of theory
(Klir, 1969). Gibbons (2013) clarified by saying that “scientific theory is analytic—used to
construct an understanding of the forces that drive natural and human-made phenomenon” while
design theory produces “a body of synthetic principles which can be used to design, to plan, to
prescribe, to devise, to invent, to create, and to otherwise channel natural forces for
accomplishment of human purposes” (Chapter 6). In brief, “in [science] they are trying to
understand how and why things happen, and in [technology, design] they are trying to discover
how to influence things to happen” (Gibbons, 2013, Chapter 6, emphasis added).
In the domain of education, both Gibbons (2009, 2013) and Reigeluth (1999) have
written extensively about the distinctive role of “instructional design theory” in informing both
education practice and research. Interest has surged in design-based research that emphasizes
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
5
inquiry principles and processes consistent with the purposes of knowledge creation and theory
building in design fields (Barab, 2006; Collins, 1992). Understanding the distinctions between
scientific and design research is particularly important in education research domains because
most of the design models and theories developed are poor matches for scientific theory but good
matches for design theory (sometimes called technological theory) (Gibbons, 2003).
3. Explore, Explain, Design
Gibbons and Bunderson (2005) developed a taxonomy placing discussion of research and
theories in perspective for design-related fields like education. They identified three important
knowledge-producing enterprises: explore, explain, and design1. These three categories can be
distinguished in terms of the questions for which answers are sought (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1.
Descriptions of Three Types of Theory Used in Research.
Research-Enterprise
Explore (scientific and
technological)
Model/Theory Description
· Answers “What exists?”
· Defines
· Categorizes
Explain (scientific)
· Answers “Why does this happen?”
· Looks for causality and correlation
· Works with variables and relationships between them
Design (technological)
· Answers “How do I achieve this outcome?”
· Describes interventions for reaching targeted outcomes
· Describes “operational principles” that make an
intervention or design work
Gibbons and Bunderson (2005) noted that progress in each of the research areas
contributes to further questions and research in the other areas. While explain (scientific)
1
Because these words are used as specific terms labeling research, theory and models, yet are
verbs that describe related actions, the labeling use is italicized throughout the chapter, and the
generic use is in roman type.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
6
research is commonly considered as necessarily preceding design (technological) research, there
are many counter examples. For example, the Wright brothers built the first wind tunnel for
experimenting with wing designs to create knowledge that Bernoulli’s principle could not
possibly supply (Vincenti, 1990). Similarly, a plethora of natural remedies (medicines) were
developed in ancient cultures before scientists could explain their results.
3.1 Explore
Explore research seeks to define and categorize, identifying “what is there and what are
possible groupings and relationships among what is there” (Gibbons & Bunderson, 2005, p.
927). With this kind of “natural history” research, Charles Darwin documented the similarities
and differences in finches and other kinds of wildlife on the Galapagos Islands before developing
a scientifically testable theory. Such research identifies patterns that become the foundation for
questions in scientific inquiry (explain) or the basis for developing artifacts and processes
(design), even though the underlying causal mechanisms may not be fully understood.
Figure 2.1 represents two common kinds of explore models: (1) attempts to define and
distinguish a domain and (2) identification of dimensions that characterize types within a
domain. Both models seek to identify factors that matter, emphasizing connections among the
factors but not their influence on each other. In the domain of blended learning, explore models
would (1) try to distinguish BL from other closely related domains and (2) try to characterize
categories of blends within the domain.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
7
Figure 2.1. Visual representation of two kinds of explore models.
3.2 Explain
Explain research is often labeled scientific research; it seeks to “explain why and explain
how,” specifically through “experimental inquiry into cause” (Gibbons & Bunderson, 2005, pp.
927, 929). Explain theory articulates generalizable relationships between two or more variables,
typically establishing the nature of the relationships through correlational or experimental
research (see a simplified representation in Figure 2.2). Its purpose is to explain the relationship,
not to identify interventions that might be designed to affect one of the variables. Typical
variables explained by blended learning research include constructs such as satisfaction,
academic performance, social presence, and sense of community. The example in Figure 2.3
illustrates with variables from the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison et al., 2000).
Explain theory might posit a positive correlation between cognitive presence, social presence,
teaching presence, and student performance, explaining how these factors interrelate but not
dealing with what characteristics of the intervention impact any variation in the factors.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
8
Figure 2.2 Simplified visual representation of the nature of explain models.
Figure 2.3 Simplified visual illustration of explain theory using the Community of Inquiry
framework (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008)
3.3 Design
Design research describes intentional structuring of artifacts and intervention plans to
increase the likelihood of particular outcomes (Gibbons & Bunderson, 2005). Design research
differs from scientific research in that a target outcome is identified and interventions undergo
experimentation and revision until that outcome is achieved.
Figure 2.4 is a simplified representation of design theory, which studies a combination of
variables representing core attributes of an intervention that can be designed. Figure 2.5
demonstrates this theory using the practical inquiry model from the COI literature (Garrison &
Vaughan, 2008). The model provides a specific process leading to the learning outcome of
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
9
developing problem solving abilities. This cyclical process begins with a triggering event,
followed by exploration, integration, and resolution. Garrison and Vaughan outlined specific
aspects of an intervention to create practical inquiry. For example, to create a triggering event
they recommended a prereading assignment or activity on a specified topic or issue, followed by
a self-assessment quiz, survey or discussion forum to help learners discover what they know.
Similar interventions are proposed for exploration, integration, and resolution (see Garrison &
Vaughan, 2008, Chap. 7). A design with the core attributes of practical inquiry could be tested
by measuring how well it helps to achieve the desired learning outcomes. Previous explore
research may have established the connection between practical inquiry and performance, and
the purpose of the design research is to discover how to build an environment involving the
integration of multiple variables that increases the chances that the desired outcomes will occur.
Figure 2.4 Simplified visual representation of instructional design models.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
10
Figure 2.5 Simplified visual illustration of an instructional design model using the “practical
inquiry model” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008).
Design models and theory establish the core attributes of a specific design, what Gibbons
(2013) referred to as the design’s operational principles: what makes it work. Unlike
experimental research, all variables do not need to be held constant in order to vary only one.
The desired design outcome is typically understood, and one or more dimensions of the design
are changed to impact the outcome. Reigeluth (1999) further elaborated that an important
characteristic of instructional design theories is that they are design oriented (or goal oriented), in
contrast to what most people consider to be scientific theories with deterministic cause/effect
relationships. Instructional design theories specify effects resulting from flows of events in
natural processes, which are almost always probabilistic (the cause increases the chances of the
stated effect rather than always resulting in the stated effect).
Figures 2.6-2.8 represent three common patterns for design research (sometimes referred
to as design-based research) in which the unit of analysis is the design. Figure 2.6 represents
research focused on how an intervention (with a set of clearly identified core attributes) achieves
a desired outcome. Figure 2.7 shows how one design might be compared to another design
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
11
employing a different integration of variables. Figure 2.8 shows how one design might be
changed over time and compared to previous design iterations.
Figure 2.6 Visual representation of design research that measures the outcome of a particular
design.
Figure 2.7 Visual representation of design research that compares two different designs.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
12
Figure 2.8 Visual representation of design research that compares iterations of a design over
time.
4. Explore, Explain, and Design in BL Research
In several previous articles, we have sought to understand what models and theoretical
frameworks are driving the research in blended learning (Drysdale et al., 2013; Graham, 2013;
Halverson et al., 2012). The outcomes of this previous work have primarily pointed to the need
for a more robust description and analysis of model and theory development in the blended
learning domain. This section uses the explore, explain, design framework to characterize the
current state of blended learning model and theory development.
4.1 Explore Models of Blended Learning
Much of the early research in blended learning has been concerned with exploring and
defining the phenomenon of blended learning. Picciano (this volume) described a historical
perspective on this process within the Sloan Consortium. Many researchers have observed
blended learning and created models attempting to show how blended learning is distinct from
both distance education and traditional classroom learning. Exploring the boundaries of a
domain as well as classifications within a domain is the core of explore research. The models
that result from this research typically (1) define what blended learning is and isn’t and/or (2)
provide categories of different kinds of blends.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
13
4.1.1 Definitional models.
Early models began trying to define the contours of blended learning by answering the
question “What is being blended?” in three competing ways (Graham, 2006, p. 4):
•
Combining online and face-to-face instruction (Reay, 2001; Rooney, 2003; Sands,
2002; Ward & LaBranche, 2003; Young, 2002)
•
Combining instructional modalities (or delivery media) (Bersin & Associates, 2003;
Orey, 2002a, 2002b; Singh & Reed, 2001; Thomson, 2002)
•
Combining instructional methods (Driscoll, 2002; Rossett, 2002)
Models adopting the first definition are the most prominent in the research, with the
second definition maintaining some prominence in corporations, and the third definition rarely
being used. Efforts to refine the first definition argued for reduced seat time or a certain
percentage of online instruction as defining characteristics (see Graham, 2012 for a detailed
analysis). For example, Picciano’s (2009) definition required that “a portion (institutionally
defined) of face-to-face time [be] replaced by online activity” (p. 10), while Allen and Seaman’s
(2007) designation identified four categories: (1) traditional as having 0% of content delivered
online, (2) web facilitated as 1%-29% online, (3) blended as 30%-79% online, and (4) online as
80% or more online. Other definitions included quality descriptors such as “the thoughtful
integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences”
(Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p. 96, emphasis added) or “courses that integrate online with
traditional face-to-face class activities in a planned, pedagogically valuable manner” (Picciano,
2006, p. 97, emphasis added).
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
14
4.1.2 Model categories.
A second category of explore research models seeks to characterize categories of blended
learning. Early work by Graham (2006) distinguished between blends at the activity, course,
program, and institutional levels. Models began to emerge that identified different kinds of
blended learning in terms of pedagogical rather than just physical characteristics: for example,
physical and pedagogical dimensions identified by Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts, & Francis (2006).
Additionally, Graham & Robison (2007) developed a model using scope, purpose, and the nature
of pedagogical interventions to distinguish transforming, enhancing, and enabling blends found
at a university. Other researchers developed more specific models distinguishing between types
of blended learning based on both the physical and pedagogical structuring of the blended
learning environment. Some of the most prominent models in the categories of higher education,
K-12 education, and corporate training are outlined in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2.
Examples of Categories of Blended Learning Models.
A. Higher Education
Twigg (2003)
A.1 Supplemental
• Supplemental online
materials
• Online quizzes
• Additional online
activities
• Flexibility of online
activities for computer
lab or home
A.2 Replacement
• Reduction of in-class
meeting time
• Replacement of face-to-
B. K-12 Education
Staker & Horn (2012)
B.1 Rotation
C. Corporate Training
Rossett & Frazee (2006)
C.1 Anchor Blend
• Rotation among learning
• Introductory substantive
modalities, at least one of
face-to-face (F2F)
which is online
classroom experience
• Station Rotation--rotations
• Subsequent independent
within a classroom
online experiences
• Lab Rotation—rotations within
C.2 Bookend Blend
locations on a school campus
• Flipped Classroom—rotation
• Introductory experience
within a given course or subject
online or F2F
including online remote (at
• A substantive learning
home)
experience online or F2F
• Individual Rotation—
• A conclusion that extends
individually tailored rotation
the learning into practice
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
face class time with
online activities
• Flexibility of online
activities for computer
lab or home
A.3 Emporium
• Elimination of class
meetings
• Substitution of a
learning resource center
with online materials
and on-demand personal
assistance
A.4 Buffet
• Several learning options
from which students
choose
schedule for a course or subject
B.2 Flex
• Instruction primarily online in a
classroom with customized F2F
support when needed
B.3 Self-Blend
• Option of an entirely online
course to supplement
traditional courses
B.4 Enriched Virtual
15
at work
C.3 Field Blend
• A range of instructional
assets
• Choice of when and
where to use the assets as
needed to meet workrelated challenges
• Availability of online
instructional assets
• A possible classroom
experience as part of the
mix
• School experience mostly
online with some on-campus
enrichment
Each model represents patterns that the researchers observed in practice. Descriptions
are provided of features that distinguish the kinds of blends but do not prescribe design guidance
for when and how the blends should be implemented or explain why specific models work under
certain conditions.
4.1.3 Discussion of BL explore models and theories.
One pattern we noticed among explore models is that most focus on surface features
(physical structuring) of BL systems as opposed to the pedagogical structuring. Early definitions
focused on delivery media or physical environment (i.e., face-to-face versus online). Models
that have identified categories of blends have also focused heavily on surface structure. With
few exceptions, the defining characteristics of the blends listed in Table 2.2 are not pedagogical,
but focus on the when, where and who of the instructional delivery. Some models (like the
flipped classroom) may imply a particular kind of pedagogy (e.g., individual feedback, lecture,
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
16
collaboration, etc.), but do not impose pedagogy or quality criteria. Staker & Horn (2012)
explained, “[the models] set forth basic patterns that are emerging, but avoid setting tight
parameters about how a model ‘has to be’” (p.1).
4.2 Explain Theory for Blended Learning
Explain theory articulates variables and relationships among variables (see Section 3.2
and Figure 2.2), seeking to understand these relationships, not to design an intervention that
produces one of them. We reviewed dozens of studies, including the 50 most cited blended
learning articles (Halverson et al., 2012), to try and understand how explain theory was being
used in blended learning research. We found three basic patterns: (1) mention of theory, (2)
application of theory, and (3) development of theory. Table 2.3 highlights examples of each.
Table 2.3.
Examples of Explain Research in the Blended Learning Literature.
Use of Explain Theory
Mention of Theory
The research mentions a
theoretical framing as part
of a literature review or an
argument for
implementing or studying
blended learning, but does
not attempt to apply or
confirm the theory.
Examples
Oliver and Trigwell (2005): Variation theory is offered as
rationale for continued research and interest in blended learning.
Variation theory states that learning occurs when variation is
perceived. Authors hypothesize that blended learning has
proved successful because of its ability to create and distinguish
variation in what is to be learned.
Application of Theory
The research uses the
variables and relationships
proposed in the study to
frame the collected and
analyzed inquiry data as
part of the inquiry, but
Lynch and Dembo (2004): Previous research indicated that selfregulation was important to learner success in distance learning.
The authors looked for correlations between student performance
and motivation, internet self-efficacy, time management, study
environment management, and learning assistance management
to understand role of self-regulation in learner success in a
blended learning environment.
Mortera-Gutiérrez (2006): The author states that social presence
theory, media richness theory, and media synchronicity theory
have the potential to explain outcomes and phenomena of
interest in blended learning.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
does not seek to challenge
or build on the theory.
Development of Theory
The research proposes a
new theory or seeks to
challenge, change, or
build on current theory.
17
Ginns and Ellis (2007): The authors sought to better understand
the correlational relationships between student perceptions of the
online learning experience, student approaches to learning, and
student grades in a blended learning environment. Previous
research validated the relationship between student perceptions
of learning experience, student approaches to learning, and the
quality of the learning experience.
Klein, Noe, and Wang (2006): Authors built on training
motivation theory and the input-output process model of learning
to examine correlations between motivation and learning
outcomes, and correlations between learning goal orientation,
perceived barriers/ enablers, and delivery mode and motivation.
So & Brush (2008): Research in distance education calls for
closer attention to factors affecting psychological distance. To
do so, the study examined correlational relationships among
perceived levels of collaboration, social presence, and student
satisfaction—variables synthesized from different theories that
have been identified as important to understanding psychological
distance.
Sometimes researchers would only briefly explain theoretical frameworks to provide
background for the research or establish an argument for their blended approach. Another
common use was in identifying variables to study, including
•
social, teaching, and cognitive presence from the Community of Inquiry (Akyol,
Vaughan, & Garrison, 2011;Vaughan & Garrison, 2005);
•
satisfaction, learning effectiveness, cost effectiveness, etc. from the Sloan-C Pillars
(Lorenzo & Moore, 2002); and
•
sense of community (Barnard-Brak & Shiu, 2010; Rovai & Jordan, 2004).
Often the implied research contribution was application of theory to a new context
(blended learning) in order to show its utility in that setting. Rarely was the research intended to
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
18
disconfirm or challenge a theory or the assumptions within a theory. In discussing what makes a
theoretical contribution, Whetten (1989) stated that “applying an old model to a new setting and
showing that it works as expected is not instructive by itself” (p. 493). He elaborated, “Theorists
need to learn something new about the theory itself as a result of working with it under different
conditions. That is, new applications should improve the tool, not merely reaffirm its utility”
(Whetten, 1989, p. 493). In summary, while theoretical frameworks were often mentioned or
even tested in explain research, studies that sought to develop specific aspects of a theory were
uncommon.
4.3 Design Models for Blended Learning
Design models designate target outcomes and indicate core attributes of a design that
affect or bring about those outcomes (see Section 3.2 and Figure 2.4). The purpose of design
models is to show how to manipulate an intervention to achieve a desired result. After reviewing
the design research in blended learning, including the 50 most cited blended learning articles
(Halverson et al., 2012), we identified three patterns: (1) model articulation, (2) model
comparison, and (3) model iteration. Table 2.4 describes examples.
Table 2.4.
Examples of Design Research in the Blended Learning Literature.
Use of Design
Models/Theory
Model Articulation
This research clearly
articulates a BL model and
the outcomes the model
should achieve (see Figure
2.6).
Example(s)
Beatty (2013) described the HyFlex model, which was
developed to provide greater flexibility to students in class
participation options and course selection. To achieve the
desired flexibility, Beatty identified four core attributes the
course design should include: alternative participation modes,
equivalency in activities, reuse of learning objects or artifacts
between modalities, and accessibility to technology and
participation modes.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
19
Picciano (2009) developed the Blending with Purpose
Multimodal Model. The outcome of the model is a design that
can reach a variety of students and learning needs. The core
attributes of the model are six pedagogical objectives for which
to consider blending modalities: content, student social and
emotional support, dialectic/questioning activities, reflection,
collaboration, and synthesis/evaluation/assessment.
Model Comparison
This research compares a
BL model to either a
different type of BL or a
non-BL model (see Figure
2.7).
Many studies compared course models distinguished by
modality (blended, online, or face-to-face) on outcome measures
of student performance or student satisfaction (Brown &
Liedholm, 2002; Rivera & McAlister, 2002; Tuckman, 2002;
Utts, Sommer, Acredolo, Maher, & Matthews, 2003).
Hoxie, Stillman, & Chesal (2013, this volume) compared
Rotation and Flex blended learning models in middle and high
schools in a New York City school district. The authors
examined differences in teacher and student experiences, noting
the impact of model type on teacher practice and on student
motivation, satisfaction, and learning.
Model Iteration
This research articulates a
BL model intended to
achieve particular
outcomes and
systematically tested and
improved over time (see
Figure 2.8).
Power (2008) explained the Blended Online Learning model,
developed over the course of several years as university faculty
and designers worked together in developing online humanities
courses. Over the course of iterations, the model progressed
from a largely asynchronous distance education model to a blend
of asynchronous and synchronous design and delivery.
Much of the design research was comprised of comparison studies attempting to test the
effectiveness of a blended course design or activity against a face-to-face or online counterpart.
We noted a definite need for iterative design research, but few studies reported on iterations and
subsequent model development. This type of research can lead to identification of core attributes
that influence the desired outcomes of models, which can then be tested and better understood
through explain research. Two limitations of many of the BL design studies were (1) that core
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
20
attributes of the interventions affecting student performance or student satisfaction were neither
well known nor clearly articulated and (2) that identified differences in models typically focused
on physical aspects of the course (e.g., online vs. face-to-face activities).
4.3.1 Articulation of core attributes.
Commonly, qualitative case study research describes a particular design in great detail,
which, although worthwhile, does not fill the design model role. Design models provide
prescriptive guidance about what a design should be in order to increase the probability of
achieving a desired outcome. For design research to be effective, researchers must clearly
identify the core attributes that they postulate are making the design work along with the
situational characteristics/constraints that define the context in which the design functions.
Without these details, other researchers cannot test and build on assumptions and hypotheses that
are part of design models. Additionally, the models become less useful to practitioners who are
looking for guidance as they make decisions about their own BL implementations.
4.3.2 Surface features.
A prominent feature of much of the design research to date has been a focus on surface
features, or physical attributes (e.g., online, face-to-face), of the design without articulating
clearly the core pedagogical attributes. This emphasis is one of the reasons the meta-analysis
commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education (Means et al., 2010) found statistically
significant differences between blended, online, and traditional classrooms but was not able to
identify factors leading to these findings. Such results are comparable to saying that generally
“compact cars” get better gas mileage than “trucks,” a claim that does not identify the core
attributes that make compact cars more fuel efficient--the weight, shape, or engine size of the
vehicle. Significant progress in BL research requires us to “look under the hood” and identify
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
21
core pedagogical attributes of our BL systems and not maintain focus entirely on the physical
attributes of the systems.
4.3.3 Design layers.
Gibbons and Rogers (2009) described a theory of design layers, which posits that
instructional designs contain common elements or layers and that within each layer is a body of
knowledge (and theory) applied to the layer’s construction and operation. We consider this an
important idea for the future of design research in the BL domain. While Gibbons and Rogers
(2009) defined seven different design layers they considered important to instructional design,
we simplify the concept to focus on just two: the pedagogical layer (what Gibbons calls the
“strategy layer”) and the physical layer (a merging of Gibbons’ “representation layer” and
others). The physical layer is the presentation or delivery of instruction, while the pedagogical
layer is the strategy that enables learning to take place. We believe aspects of the physical layer
can impact the availability and effectiveness of the pedagogical layer. Figure 2.9 illustrates the
interplay between these two layers.
The prominent focus on the physical layer in BL design research and models can
highlight differences in access and cost effectiveness, but tells little about the pedagogical
attributes that actually influence learning outcomes and can lead to many of the problems
inherent in media studies (Clark, 1983; Kozma, 1991). Greater attention needs to be given to
identifying the core attributes in the pedagogical layer of the design that lead to the learning
outcomes of interest as well as to understanding how attributes in different design layers
compliment each other and work together.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
22
Figure 2.9 Visual representation of two potential design layers. BL design models/theory need to
specify more than core attributes in the physical layer.
5. Conclusion
In this chapter we highlighted three distinct types of models/theory used in BL research:
explore, explain, and design. We also identified some patterns suggesting ways to strengthen the
models and theories being developed in the BL domain. First, many of the models and theories
have not articulated clearly the core attributes, relationships and rationale behind their selection
and organization. In their critique of educational theories, Burkhardt and Shoenfeld (2003)
commented,
Most of the theories that have been applied to education are quite broad. They lack what
might be called “engineering power.” To put it a different way, they lack the specificity
that helps to guide design, to take good ideas and make sure that they work in practice.
(p. 10)
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
23
Models and theories need to articulate more clearly and specifically the core building blocks of
good theory in the social sciences identified by Whetten (1989) and recognize that they may
exist within different layers of the design. (See Section 2 of this chapter.)
Second, the heavy focus in existing models on physical or surface-level characteristics
rather than pedagogical or psychological characteristics is impeding progress. Distance
education research was able to make significant theoretical progress when it moved its focus
beyond the physical layer to the psychological layer. Moore (2013) accomplished this by
proposing that the essential research construct was not physical separation, but transactional (or
psychological) distance between the instructor and the learner, which could be defined in terms
of a relationship between dialog and structure and related to other psychological concepts such as
autonomy. BL models and theories need to make the same transition. We believe that the
concept of design layers is a powerful approach to this problem, as it allows BL models to
specify the connection between physical and pedagogical layers of a design (see Section 4.3.3 in
this chapter).
Third, our examination of research specific to BL identified a solid number of explore
models, a very limited focus on explain models/theories, and an increasing number of design
models (though many lacked appropriate specificity). We did not commonly find explicit
development and improvement of the models/theories across multiple studies and/or between
different researchers; more commonly, models were proposed or used only once. This may be
because research in the blended learning domain is relatively new or because the limited
specificity of the models does not enable meaningful replication across contexts. We believe
that increased attention on theory development can help to focus the discourse happening in the
BL research community as well as strengthen BL practice.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
24
Finally, we challenge BL researchers to critically analyze their own models and theories
to determine if they are clearly and sufficiently identifying the core building blocks of good
theory identified by Whetten (1989) (see Section 2 of this chapter.). We also encourage
researchers to engage in more theory building, which includes systematically exploring, testing,
and adjusting models and theory over time as well as seeking to develop models and theories that
have wide appeal and applicability beyond a single classroom or institution.
References
Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the
development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231–
246. doi:10.1080/10494820902809147
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning.
Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Barab, S. (2006). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for the learning scientist. In
R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 153-169).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Barnard-Brak, L., & Shiu, W. (2010). Classroom community scale in the blended learning
environment: A psychometric review. International Journal on E-Learning, 9(3), 303–
311.
Beatty, B. J. (2014, in press). Hybrid courses with flexible participation – the HyFlex course
design. In L. Kyei-Blankson and E. Ntuli (Eds.) Blended Learning Environments:
Experiences in K-20 Education. Hershey, PA:IGI Global.
Bersin, J. (2003). Blended learning: What works: An industry study of the business impact of
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
25
blended learning. Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.bersin.com/Practice/Detail.aspx?docid=5870
Brown, B. W., & Liedholm, C. E. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in Principles of
Microeconomics? The American Economic Review, 92(2), 444–448.
doi:10.1257/000282802320191778
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more
useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–
14. doi:10.3102/0013189X032009003
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Review of Educational
Research, 53(4), 445-459.
Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.),
New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Dickmeyer, N. (1989). Metaphor, model, and theory in education research. Teachers College
Record, 91(2), 151–160.
Driscoll, M. (2002, March 1). Blended learning: Let's get beyond the hype. e-learning. Retrieved
from
http://www.ltimagazine.com/ltimagazine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=11755
Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Halverson, L. (2013). An analysis of research
trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and Higher
Education, 17, 90–100. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.003
Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 17–39). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally
College Publishing Company.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
26
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential
in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework,
principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gibbons, A. S. (2003). The practice of instructional technology: Science and technology.
Educational technology, 43(5), 11–16.
Gibbons, A. S. (2013, in press). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Gibbons, A. S., & Bunderson, C. V. (2005). Explore, explain, design. In K. K. Leondard (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (pp. 927–938). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Gibbons, A. S., & Rogers, P. C. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. M.
Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, (Vol.
III, p. 305-326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between
on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1),
53–64. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.003
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future
directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
27
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore
(Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (3rd ed. pp. 333–350). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Graham, C. R., & Robison, R. (2007). Realizing the transformational potential of blended
learning: Comparing cases of transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher
education. In A. G. Picciano & C. D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research
perspectives (pp. 83–110). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Drysdale, J. S. (2012). An analysis of high
impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Education, 33(3),
381–413. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166
Hoxie, Stillman, and Chesal (this volume).
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. Philadelphia,
PA: Chandler Publishing Company.
Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The
impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers.
Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 665–702. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00050.x
Klir, G. J. (1969). An approach to general systems theory. New York, NY: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
Lorenzo, G., & Moore, J. C. (2002). The Sloan Consortium report to the nation: Five pillars of
quality online education. Retrieved from http://www.sloanc.org/effective/pillarreport1.pdf
Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). Online learning in a blended learning context. International
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
28
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/189/271
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning
studies. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Moore, M. G. (2004). Research worth publishing (editorial). American Journal of Distance
Education, 18(3), 127–130.
Moore, M. G. (2013). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of
distance education (3rd ed., pp. 66–85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Mortera-Gutiérrez, F. (2006). Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning and
face-to-face instruction. E-learning, 5(3), 313–337.
McDougall, A., & Jones, A. (2006). Theory and history, questions and methodology: Current
and future issues in research into ICT in education. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 15(3), 353–360. doi:10.1080/14759390600923915
Merton, R. K. (1967). On theoretical sociology: Five essays, old and new. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can “blended learning” be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 17–
26. doi:10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.2
Orey, M. (2002a). Definition of blended learning. University of Georgia. Retrieved from
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~mikeorey/blendedLearning
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
29
Orey, M. (2002b). One year of online blended learning: Lessons learned. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Sarasota, FL.
Picciano, A. G. (2006). Blended learning: Implications for growth and access. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(3), 95–102.
Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The mutimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 13(1), 7–18.
Picciano (this volume).
Power, M. (2008). The emergence of a blended online learning environment. MERLOT Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 503–514.
Reay, J. (2001). Blended learning--a fusion for the future. Knowledge Management Review,
4(3), 6.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Riffell, S., & Sibley, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate
biology courses: An evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers & Education,
44(3), 217–235. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.01.005
Rivera, J. C., McAlister, M. K., & Rice, M. L. (2002). A comparison of student outcomes &
satisfaction between traditional & web based course offerings. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 5(3). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/rivera53.html
Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Educational technology research that makes a difference: Series
introduction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 192–201.
Roblyer, M. D., & Knezek, G. (2003). New millennium research for educational technology: A
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
30
call for a national research agenda. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
36(1), 60–71.
Rooney, J. E. (2003). Knowledge infusion: Blending learning opportunities to enhance
educational programming and meetings. Association Management, 55(6), 26–32.
Rossett, A. (2002). The ASTD e-learning handbook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rossett, A., & Frazee, R. V. (2006). Blended learning opportunities. American Management
Association. Retrieved from
http://www.grossmont.edu/don.dean/pkms_ddean/ET795A/WhitePaper_BlendLearn.pdf
Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (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 from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274
Sands, P. (2002). Inside outside, upside downside: Strategies for connecting online and face-toface instruction in hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6). Retrieved from
http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/sands2.htm
Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of
blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. York, UK: The Higher
Education Academy. Retrieved from
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/Teachingandresearch/Undergraduate_Expe
rience
Simon, H. A. (1999). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simonson, M., Schlosser, C., & Hanson, D. (1999). Theory and distance education: A new
discussion. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 60–75.
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
31
Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Centra
Software. Retrieved from
http://www.centra.com/download/whitepapers/blendedlearning.pdf
So, H., & Brush, T. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and
satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors.
Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute, Inc.
Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning2.pdf
Sutton, R., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3),
371–384. doi: 10.2307/2393788
Thomson, I. (2002). Thomson job impact study: The next generation of corporate learning.
Retrieved from http://www.netg.com/DemosAndDownIoads/Downloads/JobImpact.pdf
Tuckman, B. (2002). Evaluating ADAPT: A hybrid instructional model combining web-based
and classroom components. Computers & Education, 39(3), 261–269.
doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00045-3
Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning.
Educause Review, 38(5), 28–38.
Utts, J., Sommer, B., Acredolo, C., Maher, M. W., & Matthews, H. (2003). A Study Comparing
Traditional and Hybrid Internet-based Instruction in Introductory Statistics Classes.
Journal of Statistics Education, 11(3). Retrieved from
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v11n3/utts.html
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Models and Theory for Blended Learning Research
32
development community. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1–12.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.11.001
Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from
aeronautical history. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ward, J., & LaBranche, G. A. (2003). Blended learning: The convergence of e-learning and
meetings. Franchising World, 35(4), 22–23.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management
Review 14(4), 490–495. doi:10.2307/258554
Young, J. R. (2002). “Hybrid” teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online
instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28), A33–A34. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ645445
Source: Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano,
C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2 (pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.