This was originally submitted as part of Master of Digital Design, Griffith Univiersity.
Abstract
Blended or hybrid learning is an accepted standard in post–secondary education, with technology increasingly implemented in learning design within universities and the vocational sector. While it has been embraced for reasons of efficiency for learning institutions and a range of perceived benefits for learners, new challenges are emerging in areas of student utilisation and learner design.
The Vocational Education sector is one of Australia's largest educational sectors, yet evidence of quality blended learning design this sector are scant.
Can authentic blended learning be implemented with a learner centred emphasis to facilitate transformative student engagement and learning?
FREDref
Vocational education and training, competency based training, student learning, motivation, online learning, blended learning, curriculum design, industry relevant courses, student engagement, self–regulated learning, millennial learners, transformative learning, digital natives,
Web keywords
Blended learning, hybrid learning, instructional design, online learning, VET, education, technology.
Content
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to describe the utilisation of blended learning within adult education, in particular the vocational education sector; its benefits and challenges and to explore a way forward in designing blended learning with regard to quality student outcomes, rather than pragmatic concerns.
Definitions and limitations
For this paper, the terms blended learning and hybrid learning are used interchangeably.
This paper does not contain an in–depth examination of educational or student engagement theory, constructivist theory, principles of effective teaching, flow theory, or theories of learning styles: however these concepts are broached in the manner of a scope paper. These issues may be investigated in future FREDs.
What is blended learning?
While blended learning models are becoming an accepted aspect of education courses worldwide, Sahin (2010, p. 96) suggests that there is not yet a standard definition. Norberg, Dzubiuban & Moskal (2011, p206) characterise blended learning in terms of a synthesized combination of media use and communication methods utilized with or instead of the traditional classroom model, with the teacher role transformed to that of a facilitator of collective learning. Alberts, Murray and Stephenson (2009, p. 188) define blended or hybrid learning as incorporating extra and supplementary resources, significant use of technology and a whole approach to technology as practised in learning. The term has also been used to include wider connotations such as »the mixture of synchronous and asynchronous modes of communication, formal and informal modes of delivery» (Deng & Yuen, 2010, p. 230).
Blended learning embraces the concept that online and computer mediated communication provide valuable supplementary support to face–to–face learning, while in traditional classroom interaction, it may be seen as a tool for building student group trust (Deng & Yuen, 2010, p. 230). It has been increasingly implemented since early 2000s, as educational institutions realized that they must integrate information technologies in classroom practice (Bangert‐Drowns & Pyke, 2001, p. 214).
Institutional implementation of blended learning
While Singh and Reed (2001, p. 1) describe blended learning as a program where multiple delivery platforms are utilised in order to optimise learning outcomes, it is instructive to note that the emphasis is also on optimising program delivery costs.
Late 20th century revealed many learning institute funding and sizing issues, including sizes of university classes, limited funding and professional development opportunities for faculty, which expedited the actualisation of technological tools in teaching(Gunn, 2013, p. 146). Online learning capabilities provided a possible solution for providing wider learning opportunities without the inherent requirement for additional staffing and facilities ( Al–Qahtani & Higgins, 2012, p. 221).
Changing social and generational trends encouraged revision of traditional classroom education including: increasing cultural and educational diversity of student cohorts within class groups and a generational trend of higher education learners more fluent in technology and modern communication modes than teachers (Prensky quoted in Gunn, 2013, p. 146). Tapscott (2008, chapter 5) suggests that the older model of "broadcast» learning is outmoded to millennial learners who expect individualized, interactive learning materials.
As Tapscott asserts (2009, Introduction), for digital natives (born between 1977 and 1997) online and blended technologies are part of the “new normal”—Hinssen's concept technologies that are assumed as everyday aspects of life (Norberg, Dziuban & Moskal, 2011, p207). From the late 1990s, Web 2.0 facilitated participatory tools and a social–centric web paradigm. Blessenger and Wankel postulate (2013, pp. 5 & 9) Web 2.0's capabilities enable users to dynamically create content and architecture, encouraging collaboration and freedom of information distribution. The tools' ability to diminish geographical barriers could create more agile environments, which mirror democratic processes of collaboration and participation.
Vocational Education sector acceptance
Bliuc, Casey, Bachfischer et al surveyed the perceptions of Vocational education teachers to the implementation of blended learning and found the majority viewed blended learning as an technologically an logistically convenient delivery method, with only a minority assessing it from a student centred perspective (2012, pp. 5–16), describing the disconnect between a student centred approach and a perception that it is merely pragmatic for the institution as "fragmented conceptions».
Singh and Reed concede that analyses of educational delivery costs and infrastructure can play a crucial role in determining blended learning solutions: with the assertion that it can reduce class‐time by 50%, the perceived advantage of self–paced learning is that it is lower in cost to deliver than face to face delivery. However, the authors also acknowledge that truly well designed, interactivity–rich media can be more costly to execute than traditional delivery (2001, p. 5). As Mitchell & Honore suggest (2007, pp. 3–7), though blended and online learning may be incorrectly perceived and introduced as a cost efficiency activity, the actual investment in human and technological resources required to enact and facilitate quality blended learning resources is substantial.
Benefits of blended learning
While blended learning proponents have proposed that learner performance can be maintained or improved over increasingly large student cohorts without the extra staffing requirements and Norberg and Moskal advise that blended learning enables expanded university program outreach capabilities without demand for ever expanding infrastructure (2011, p. 208), the emphases on the benefits to educational institutions should be balanced by the benefits regarded to the learners. As Bliuc, Casey, Bachfisher et al suggest, quality implementation can transform teacher perceptions from pragmatic emphasis on cost and delivery to a description of blended learning which encompasses opportunities for more meaningful learner experience with many benefits (20120, p. 8).
Collaboration
While Tapscott (2009, chapter 3) notes that Net generation students are natural collaborators, Launer (2010 p. 13) postulates that social interaction between learners is imperative for their motivation; on an individual level, informal exchanges of questions and advice can eliminate isolation, as well as providing group dynamics and commitment. Blended learning technologies and online communities can be a valuable tool to enhance peer‐to‐peer communication and reflection (Deng & Yuen, 2010, p. 236). Alberts, Murray and Stephenson note that blended learning can enable online education to be embedded in the social web experience which can enhance a learning community and Campbell et al are quoted as showing that asynchronous online discussions have a positive on assignment marks (2009, p. 191). Alberts, Murray and Stephenson have also noted that the anonymity afforded by online discussions may empower communication for isolated and less confident students (2009, p. 191).
Accommodating individual learning styles
It is generally accepted that teaching and learning have moved from a paradigm of passive receptive learners/authoritative instructional teachers to a multidirectional, collaborative teaching and learning approach (Wankel & Blessinger, 2012, p. 9) . Educational best practice is involved in the facilitation of learning skills rather than the transference of information. (Alberts, Murray & Stephenson, 2009, p. 186) and learners are now active participants in the learning process, rather than receivers (Launer, 2010, p. 13).
Diverse learning environments with rich media options can accommodate individual learning styles with blended learning providing the ability for learning tasks to be approached in different ways according to individual learner preferences and is adaptable to learning styles (Alberts, Murray and Stephenson, 2009, p. 194). Fluent learners can utilize supplementary activities to reinforce their understanding, inexperienced learners can move at their own pace for extra tuition; (Gunn, 2013, p. 157).
While millennial students have matured in a world of instant access to information on demand (Alberts, Murray & Stephenson, 2009, p. 192) the learning on demand model means 24 hour access to activities and resources, instead of being dictated to be timetables etc.—increasing accessibility to mature age, working students (Gunn, 2013, p. 158, Al‐Qahtani & Higgins, 2012, p. 222). This model also eliminates some of the disadvantages of the lecture model, such as the constraints of space and time and the reliance of the communication skills of the lecturer (Alberts, Murray & Stephenson, 2009, p. 186).
Blessinger and Wankel note that much learning occurs informally and incidentally to set learning tasks (2012, p. 8) and the ability to freely review and reinforce concepts facilitates progress towards more complex concepts in subsequent face‐to‐face learning (Gunn, 2013, p. 158). Technology also affords the opportunity to enhance critical reflection, as students are able to absorb and expand on the discussion and contributions of other students (Parker, 2012, p. 65).
Tapscott (2009, chapter 5, p. 1) noted that the so‐called information age has called for a new type of literacy with the emphases on the ability to speedily acquire and interpret information rather than the actual retention of information. Authentically integrated blended learning develops students' connectional skills and abilities to "connect diverse and multidimensional concepts and meanings" throughout their learning and lives, which is vital in the global, industrialized world (Blessinger & Wankel, 2013, p. 6). The requirements to take responsibility for planning study, self‐monitor, evaluate and review are crucial metacognitive skills encouraged by well‐designed blended learning (Alberts, Murray &Stephenson, 2009, p. 195).
Challenges in implementing blended learning
Though the aim is for education to be engaging and motivational for the learner, current literature indicates that instructional design utilizing emergent technologies is still developing (Gunn, 2013, p. 153). Gunn quotes Tomlinson that limited understanding of how emergent technologies work with engaging pedagogies is reducing quality implementation of blended learning (2013, pp. 153‐154). Ashbaugh (2012, p. 19) notes that even millennial learners will abandon learning technology if it fails to fulfill engagement and quality learning goals. Alberts, Murray and Stephenson note that though face‐to‐face lectures' reliance on a listening intensive model may reduce opportunities for engaged learning, blended learning may often be limited to reading‐intensive exercises (2009, p. 190).
The potential of current technologies to enhance, transform and extend the learning environment and increase motivation are well regarded. (Blessinger & Wankel, 2013, p. 5). However, Datt and Aspden remind us that the flexible tools of Web 2.0 cannot alone result in effective learning and there must be a specific purpose and rationale for using technological tools (Gunn, 2013, p. 160), routed in strong learning design principles and strongly aligned with course objectives (Blessinger & Wankel, 2013, p. 5). While technologies may offer further possibilities for students to engage with their peers and instructors, sound design principles must ensure that there are meaningful social dialogues (Blessinger & Wankel, 2013, pp. 5‐6).
Requirement for a high level of learner control
Blended learning assumes a large degree of learner independence, with student responsibility and initiative a requirement of most program designs (Alberts, Murray & Stephenson, 2009, p. 193). Karim and Berhend note that the research (DeRouin, Fritzsche, & Salas, 2005; Fisher, Wasserman, & Orvis, 2010,Brown, 2001) that suggests that the higher level of learner control afforded by blended learning can have detrimental effects as well as benefits. For example, while motivated learners find that the higher level of user‐control enables them to engage more effectively with learning, that independence may lead less motivated learners to disengage more readily than traditional classroom learning. Dabbagh and Kitsantas (quoted in Shen, Lee and Tsai, 2011, p194) cautioned that students with lower capacity for self‐regulation may struggle with the increased learner responsibility and reduced contact with teaching staff.
In one of the few published small scale surveys of blended learning in vocational education (Brown, 2008, p. 4), only two out of the ten respondents acknowledged an online learning component as enhancing their retention, and a further two articulated that they had failed to utilise the online course materials which raises questions regarding the acceptance and effectiveness of online tools.
Online communities and isolation
Research has demonstrated that autonomous self‐study aspects of blended learning can be challenging for many learners who are more comfortable with traditional classroom model (Launer, 2010, p. 13). Though it is extensively claimed that well designed hybrid learning has many advantages over face‐to‐face learning, researchers also acknowledge that isolation, loneliness and lack of community have been cited as disadvantages (Wang, Fong, Kwan, 2009, p. 187). While e‐earning communications lack the opportunity for clarification and further explanation, as well as non‐verbal cues which are integral to certain aspects of instruction (Al‐Qahtani & Higgins, 2012, p. 222), Akkoyunlu and Solylu's 2008 analyses determined that learners of various learning styles still preferred face‐to‐face aspects of learning delivery, concluding that classroom aspects of blended learning afforded enhanced opportunities for student connection and interaction than online delivery (2008, pp. 189‐190).
While online communities are a rich source of social and intellectual exchange, simply inserting notes or extra materials online does not invoke communal engagement (Deng & Yuen, 2010, p. 231). Sahin's 2010 study discovered that while vocational students recorded positive interactions with the online instructor and online instruction, they were less certain regarding the use of online cooperative learning (Sahin, 2010, p. 97) and Deng and Yuen noted that unless group cohesion is already strong, there is little incentive to engage or extend communications online. Conversely, if the cohort engages sufficiently in the classroom or personal interaction, online communications are extraneous (2010, p. 232).
Al‐Qahtani & Higgins noted that e‐learning aspects require strong learner motivation and time‐management skills to overcome the effects of isolation (2012, p. 222). Deng and Yuen found that online time constraints inhibited student interaction through blogs, with learners finding the time involved in creating and responding to blog entries as a drain on their other learning tasks and there was limited academic knowledge and research as to how an online community could best utilize online and face to face interactions and more exploratory studies were needed (2010, p. 238). Half of the participants in their study preferred to interact via other communication modes, such as phone and instant messaging (2010, p. 238), as Gunn noted that learners commonly set up their own communication channels using email, Facebook, etc., which may create issues for facilitators having to monitor communal and individual engagement in tasks (2013, p. 162).
Assumptions about digital literacy skills
Though learning technology is commonly integrated with the presupposition that millennial students are digital natives, assumptions made about learners' digital literacy and abilities to apply technology tools in various classroom and blended learning environments are not necessarily reliable nor backed by rigorous survey (Oblinger & Oblinger 2005, quoted in Gunn, 2013, p. 162). Caws' experience with language students acknowledges that engagement in many online tasks requires a sophisticated level of autonomy, computer literacy and confidence with various interactive and social media which cannot be assumed for all students within a cohort (2012, p. 113).
Gunn (2013, p165) also noted that though much blended learning is designed with the assumption that the learner cohort's research and academic skills are highly developed, the assumption that learners are top achievers from a small section of schooling society is outdated and irrelevant—as current cohorts are multicultural, with a diversity of educational experience, a wide age range and experience. In vocational training, the cohort is commonly even more diverse in terms of age, educational achievement, employment experience and levels of conceptual understanding than many university situations (Pohl, Rester, Stockelmayr et al, 2008, p. 261).
Pohl, Rester, Stockelmayr et al (2008, p. 261) concluded that many learners, especially older learners and those who have been unused to academic life, may need specifically designed courseware, assistance and active involvement of facilitator to fully appreciate the possibilities afforded by learning communities.
Successful implementation of blended learning
With its advantages of online and face‐to‐face learning, blended learning has potential to transform and improve learning experiences in a VET environment (Sahin, 2010, p. 99). Audience analyses is essential to successful realisation of blended learning, including the learners' base knowledge, location, motivation and access (Singh and Reed 2001, p. 5), while the development of digital and critical literacy, involving training tools for educators and learners is integral for the success of hybrid learning (Caw, 2012, p. 115).
The development and implementation of blended learning materials must be grounded in the same theory and learning design principles as traditional delivery (Gunn, 2013, p. 160) and technical possibilities should not be the determining factor of choice of blended learning tools or activities (Launer, 2010, p. 11). Successful blended learning is a balance between technology and classroom interaction: use of online media should be used to address fundamental needs not successfully met by traditional education modes, enhancing value of, rather than replacing traditional modes (Deng & Yuen, 2010, p. 231). A well‐considered integration of online and face‐to‐face learner experiences acknowledges that each media has it's own benefits and limitations (Deng & Yuen, 2010, p. 230).
Authentic tasks
Bliuc, Casey, Bachfischer et al (2012, p. 18) concluded that meaningful blended learning is achieved when it is actualized and administered valuing lifetime student learning. Educational social and cognitive constructivism maintains that learning is attained through authentic experiences that are culturally contextualized in a meaningful way to the learner (Blessinger & Wankel, 2013, p. 6). Learners are stimulated by "authentic tasks»—those that are obviously relevant to courses studied, work and life in general (Gunn, 2013, p. 154). Ideally, these are authentic tasks, an intrinsic motivation, and theoretical framework for their course.
Csikszentmihalyi's flow model, which has informed much theory about student engagement, proposes that learners are motivated to invest effort when learning activities are personally meaningful, intrinsically and extrinsically rewarding, and lead to applications of attained skills in ways which pertinent to their lives (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2012, p. 258). Blessinger and Wankel define authentic learning as also constituting multifaceted interactive activities, which connect diverse concepts encompassing a range of student courses, as well as life experiences (2013, p. 6). Gunn (2013, p. 157) notes that though academic literacy and transferrable skills such as thinking, reasoned analyses and information literacy are highly valued, traditional learning has often failed to focus on the concentrated development of general and transferable skills. The flexible and autonomous nature of blended learning can foster these skills by encouraging motivated students to explore learning processes.
Quality communication
Deng and Yuen (2010, p. 232) state that online community communication must be attractive to learners by enhanced usability (choosing appropriate support technologies) and have clear community and learning goals. Kim, (Deng & Yuen, 2010, p232) suggests that blended learning designers must have a clear focus as to what specific needs are to be filled by the online community and how it will enhance the offline community.
Barkley states that learning is most effective within a community in which students feel comfortable, a sense of connection and belonging, in which they feel empowered to request and contribute information, feedback and clarification with facilitators and fellow learners (2010, p. 25). As noted previously, though loose fac‐to‐face social connections can create a weak social community, strengthening face‐to‐face communications can enhance online social connections. (Deng & Yuen, 2010, p. 234).
Deng and Yuen note that creating blended learning communities is integral to successful group communication and require specialized instructional design. These communities should stimulate sociable as well as scholarly interaction and involve the majority of the learners and (2010, p. 231). Wang and Kang suggested a model of cybergogy which requires facilitators to activate emotional, social and cognitive effects for learners, utilizing the online environment to build a supportive learning environment, build self‐confidence and positive interaction with learning (Tan, Wang & Xiang, 2010, p. 3).
Learners require a high level of structure and organization in their online course materials, including selective release of materials pertaining to tasks (Alberts, Murray & Stephenson, 2009, p. 190). It is necessary to "scaffold» support novice users to engage with technology, facilitating their journey to become sel‐regulated and self‐reliant online learners through face‐t‐face contact and relevant reference materials (Kauffman quoted in Dabbagh and Kitsantas, 2005, p. 515; Chan, Lam, Yang, Mark & Leung, 2010, p206).
The role of the teacher in blended learning
Cranton (2010, p. 2012) suggests that educators in the vocational sector can aspire towards individual and group transformative educational goals—a process by which a group or individual encounters learning perspectives including critical reflection, which transform their frame of reference of learning or their life situation (Cranton, 2012, p. 55).
While learners may embrace flexibility, teachers may be daunted by new requirements to address individualized learning needs and designing engaging interactive learning environments (Tan, Wang, Xiao, 2010, p. 118), especially as blended learning technologies are constantly evolving (Alberts, Murray & Stephenson, 2009, p. 188). New and different communication technologies can allow one‐to‐one, many‐to‐many and mass communication, creating further challenges to teachers selecting tools for differing learning objectives and audiences (Deng & Yuen, 2010, p. 231).
It is widely acknowledged that facilitator participation is critical to fostering transformative learning in an online learning community, in order to maintain stimulating discussions which challenge students' perceptions and understanding (Cranton, 2012, p. 57). Though quality teaching is fundamental to any learning situation, a lack of dedication and human resource commitment to facilitate and support has a markedly negative impact on student engagement and results within the remote aspects of hybrid learning (Mitchell & Honore, 2007,pp. 3‐7). Tan, Wang & Xiao, (2010, p. 119) note that teaching using blended learning requires instructors to enact four distinct roles: pedagogical (initiating discussions of key learning issues), creating a friendly and collaborative learning environment, organizing information and directing learners and as technical advisor and support. Launer (2010, p. 13) enunciates further duties required of teachers in a blended learning environment including enabling learners to acquire new learning strategies, supporting cooperative assessment tasks, developing and overseeing flexible learning materials, assisting with technical issues, moderating student communications and providing motivation to learners. Thus, facilitators (in engaging online learning) assume social, managerial and pedagogical roles (Cranton, 2012, p. 56).
It is essential that teachers are confident in their new roles and educated in tasks that are fundamental to blended learning's application (Launer, 2010, pp. 13‐14). Blessinger & Wankel (2013, pp. 85 & 88) note however, that student teachers expressed concern about the lack of support offered regarding digital technologies and their understanding of the ways in which technology constrains and enables demonstrations and further learner can be compromised. Bliuc, Casey, Bachfischer et al conclude that operation of effective blended learning must be accompanied by training and support to teacher/facilitators so that they can reconceptualise blended learning in terms of potentially positive learner outcomes, rather than the practicalities or cost‐effectiveness of it as a delivery platform (2012, p. 19).
Conclusion
Blended learning has been embraced by higher education and the vocational education sector for a range of benefits including flexible delivery, perceived cost effectiveness, streamlining of staff hours—pragmatic attributes benefitting educational institutions.
Blended or hybrid learning may involve many advantages for the learner, including opportunities for critical self‐reflection, accommodation of various learner styles, development of digital literacy and opportunities for student collaboration and engagement beyond the classroom walls.
However, implementation must be integrated firmly within the context of quality learner experiences and not as a practical or cost‐saving measure. It is acknowledged that instructional design for blended learning is still in its infancy. Assumptions about the educational and digital literacy of student cohorts are often not correct for today's higher and vocational education sectors which accommodate learners from a broad range of age, social and educational backgrounds.
Quality learning involves a high level of facilitator involvement, to ensure students are confident and learning communities are productive. The changing role of teachers within a new technology context requires training and tools in order to facilitate quality engagement. Blended learning cannot be viewed as a cost‐saving measure, as teacher involvement, training and support are integral to its success.
Self‐reflection/Critical Analysis
A true examination of blended learning within vocational and higher education contexts requires more analyses than two FRED items allow. However, as a scope report of many of the issues facing fulfillment of blended learning, I believe this is illuminating, as it covers many of the recent (in the past 5 years) studies of blended learning and teacher and student perceptions, as well as summarising student engagement theories in context of hybrid learning.
The main conclusions supported my initial perceptions from my own experience as a vocational education trainer of design students, especially issues regarding the (often unmet) necessity to accommodate a broad variety of learners and styles.
I was, nonetheless surprised that so many of the sources I initially read made broad assumptions about the demographics of 21st century learners in higher education, when my own experience is that millennial generation learners do not make up the entire or often even majority of the student cohort of many courses and I had to delve many sources to find papers which acknowledged this.
For my own personal development, I was flummoxed by the lack of scholarly texts regarding the use of blended learning in design education, and I was unable to source studies regarding graphic design and vocational education. The few papers regarding vocational education were centered on trade industry courses; hence I used a range of texts regarding higher education blended learning experiences. There is a limited range of scholarly texts on blended learning in a VET environment, with most focusing on higher education or school levels, Bliuc, Casey, Bachfischer et al being one of the few. Sahin notes that more research needs to be completed regarding the application and practice learning outcomes of implementation of blended learning in VET (2010, p. 100).
Akkoyunlu and Soylu's discussion of Kolb's literature has encouraged me to perhaps investigate the observation that divergent learners are overrepresented in creative and design course, with divergent thinkers preferring face-to-face learning aspects and engaging less than other styles with online learning activities.
The reading I have done regarding student engagement and motivation was largely not used within this paper, but has informed and enlightened me for my training role and I am keen to pursue further reading.
Possible future investigations
Student engagement theory;
Constructivist theory, principles of effective teaching;
Flow theory;
Challenges of engaging small student groups;
Misassumptions about millennial generation learners;
Encouraging productive group dynamics in small and disparate VET design classes;
Kolb's theory regarding divergent learners;
Does blended learning foster academic dishonesty and student disengagement? (See Morse, 2003).
References
Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). Attentional involvement and intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 36(3), 257‐267. doi:10.1007/s11031‐011‐9252‐7
Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2008). A Study of Student's Perceptions in a Blended Learning Environment Based on Different Learning Styles. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (1), 183‐193.
Alberts, P., Murray, L. & Stephenson, J. (2009). Eight educational considerations for hybrid learning. In Wang, F. L., Fong, J. & Kwan, J. F. Handbook of research on hybrid learning models: Advanced tools, technologies, and applications (2009). US: Information Science Reference (Isr).
Al‐Qahtani, A. A. Y., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and e‐learning on students' achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220‐234. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2729.2012.00490.x
Ashbaugh, M. L., (2013). Leadership from ID (instructional design) for Web 2.0 adoption: appropriate use of emerging technologies in online courses. In Wankel, C., Blessinger, P., & Emerald. Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in e‐Learning Environments: Web 2.0 and Blended Learning Technologies Cutting‐edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 6G, 145–174. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/books.htm?issn=2044‐9968&volume=6%20Part%20BCopyright r 2013
Bangert‐Drowns, R. L., & Pyke, C. (2001). A taxonomy of student engagement with educational software: An exploration of literate thinking with electronic text. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(3), 213‐34. doi:10.2190/0CKM‐FKTR‐0CPF‐JLGR
Barkely, E. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Bliuc, A., Casey, G., Bachfischer, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2012). Blended learning in vocational education: Teachers' conceptions of blended learning and their approaches to teaching and design. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(2), 237‐257. doi:10.1007/s13384‐012‐0053‐0
Brown, M. (2008). Beauty and blended learning: e‐learning in vocational programs. In ASCILITE 2008 Melbourne: hello! Where are you in the landscape of technology? : proceedings:25th annual ASCILITE conference : November 30 – December 3 2008.
Caws, C., (2012). Engaging second/foreign language students through electronic writing tasks: when learning design matters. In Wankel, C., Blessinger, P., & Emerald. Increasing Student Engagement and Retention using social technologies: Facebook, e‐portfolios and other social networking services, cutting edge technologies in higher education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Chan, Y., Lam, H., Yang, H., Mark, K. & Leung, C. (2010). Hybrid inquiry‐based learning. In Wang, F. L., Fong, J. & Kwan, J. F. (2009). Handbook of research on hybrid learning models: Advanced tools, technologies, and applications (2009). . US: Information Science Reference (Isr).
Cranton, P. (2012). Transformative learning in an online environment. In V. C. X. Wang (Ed), Vocational education technologies and advances in adult learning pp. 54‐63). Hershey: IGI Global.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, K. (2005).Using web‐based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self‐regulated learning. (2005). Instructional Science, 33(5/6), 513‐540. doi:10.1007/s11251‐005‐1278‐3
Deng, L. & Yuen, A. H. K. (2010). Designing blended learning communities. In Wang, F. L., Fong, J. & Kwan, J. F. Handbook of research on hybrid learning models: Advanced tools, technologies, and applications (2009). . US: Information Science Reference (Isr).
Gunn, C. (2013). Promoting learner engagement and academic literacies through blended course design. In Wankel, C., Blessinger, P., & Emerald. Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in e‐Learning Environments: Web 2.0 and Blended Learning Technologies Cutting‐edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 6G, 145–174. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/books.htm?issn=2044‐9968&volume=6%20Part%20BCopyright r 2013
Karim, M., & Behrend T., Controlling engagement: the effects of learner control on engagement and satisfaction (2013). In Wankel, C., Blessinger, P., & Emerald. Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in e‐Learning Environments: Web 2.0 and Blended Learning Technologies Cutting‐edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 6G, 145–174. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/books.htm?issn=2044‐9968&volume=6%20Part%20BCopyright r 2013
Mitchell, A., & Honore, S. (2007). Criteria for successful blended learning. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(3), 143‐149. doi:10.1108/00197850710742243
Norberg, A., Charles D. Dziuban, & Patsy D. Moskal. (2011). A time‐based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19(3), 207‐216. doi:10.1108/10748121111163913
Parker, J. (2012). Technology as integral to a new paradigm of adult education. In V. C. X. Wang (Ed), Vocational education technologies and advances in adult learning pp. 64‐72). Hershey: IGI Global.
Shen, P., Lee, T., & Tsai, C. (2011). Applying blended learning with web‐mediated self‐regulated learning to enhance vocational students' computing skills and attention to learn. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(2), 193‐209. doi:10.1080/10494820902808958
Sahin, M. (2010) Blended Learning in vocational education: An experimental study. International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education Vol. 2(6), pp. 95‐101, October 2010 Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/IJVTE/PDF/pdf2010/October/Sahin.pdf.
Singh H, Reed C (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. [White paper] Retrieved from Centra Software: http://facilitateadultlearning.pbworks.com/f/blendedlearning.pdf
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing the world. US: McGraw‐Hill USA. Retrieved from http://library.books24x7.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/toc.aspx?bookid=14311
Tan, L., Wang, M., & Xiao, J. (2010). Best practices in teaching online or hybrid courses: A synthesis of principles. (pp. 117‐126). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978‐3‐642‐14657‐2_12
Wankel, L.A. & Blessinger, P. (2012). New vistas in higher education: an introduction to using social technologies In Wankel, L. A., Blessinger, P., Wankel, C., & Emerald. (2012). Increasing student engagement and retention using social technologies: Facebook, e‐portfolios and other social networking services. Bingley: Emerald. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/books.htm?issn=2044‐9968&volume=6%20Part%20G
Wankel, C. & Blessinger, P. (2013). An Introduction to Web 2.0 and Blended Learning Technologies. In Wankel, C., Blessinger, P., & Emerald. Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in e‐Learning Environments: Web 2.0 and Blended Learning Technologies Cutting‐edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 6G, 145–174. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/books.htm?issn=2044‐9968&volume=6%20Part%20BCopyright r 2013
Bibliography
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1989). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Biochemical Education, 17(3), 140‐141. doi:10.1016/0307‐4412(89)90094‐0
Csikszentmihalyi, M. flow: The psychology of optimal experience // review (1990). . Vancouver, B.C: Infomart, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.
Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2011). A course is a course is a course: Factor invariance in student evaluation of online, blended and face-to-face learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 236‐241. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.003