23

Blended Learning Environments

Charles R. Graham
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

Charles Dziuban
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida

CONTENTS
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................270
Learning Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................................................270
Transformational Potential ....................................................................................................................................270
Completion Rates and Academic Performance.....................................................................................................271
Assessment.............................................................................................................................................................271
Access..............................................................................................................................................................................271
Cost Effectiveness ...........................................................................................................................................................271
Student Satisfaction.........................................................................................................................................................272
Faculty Satisfaction .........................................................................................................................................................272
Organizational Considerations ........................................................................................................................................273
Research Directions.........................................................................................................................................................273
Institutional Research ............................................................................................................................................273
Faculty Adoption..........................................................................................................................................273
Models for Support and Training ................................................................................................................273
Learning Effectiveness Research...........................................................................................................................274
Conceptual Frameworks and Models ..........................................................................................................274
Role of Live Interaction vs. Computer-Mediated Communication ............................................................274
Role of Learner Choice and Self-Regulation ..............................................................................................274
Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................................274
References .......................................................................................................................................................................274

ABSTRACT
In recent decades, rapid technological innovation has
facilitated a convergence between traditional face-toface and distributed (or technology-mediated) learning

environments. These blended learning environments try

to take advantage of the strengths of both archetypal
learning environments (Graham, 2006). The emergence
of blended learning is highlighted in higher education
and in industry training literature. The Chronicle of
269

Charles R. Graham and Charles Dziuban

This chapter identies core issues and research in
the blended learning format using the Sloan Consortiums ve pillars (learning effectiveness, student satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, cost effectiveness, and
access) as an organizing framework (Lorenzo and
Moore, 2002). We also provide some directions for
future research. We have chosen to focus on blended
learning environments in a higher education context,
while acknowledging that signicant innovations also
occur in informal, military, and corporate contexts
(Collis et al., 2005; Harris, 2005; Kirkley and Kirkley,
2005, 2006; Lewis and Orton, 2006; Newton and Ellis,
2005; Wenger and Ferguson, 2006; Wisher, 2006).

Higher Education reports that the President of Pennsylvania State University regards the convergence
between online and residential instruction as the single greatest unrecognized trend in higher education
today (Young, 2002, p. A33). Similarly, the American
Society for Training and Development identies
blended learning as one of the top ten emergent trends
in the knowledge delivery industry (Finn, 2002). Yet,
surprisingly, we understand little about the nature of
blended learning systems. This chapter identies core
issues and research about blended learning using the
Sloan Consortiums ve pillars (learning effectiveness,
student satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, cost effectiveness, and access) as an organizing framework (Lorenzo
and Moore, 2002). The authors also discuss future
directions in blended learning research.

LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS

KEYWORDS

Key questions with regard to the effectiveness of

blended environments include:

Blended learning environment: A learning environment that combines face-to-face instruction with
technology-mediated instruction.
Hybrid learning environment: Alternative term for
blended learning environment.

INTRODUCTION
The term blended learning is relatively new in higher
education and in corporate settings (the terms hybrid
and blended can be used interchangeably). An ongoing
discussion has ensued on the precise meaning of the
term (Driscoll, 2002; Graham et al., 2003; Jones, 2006;
Laster, 2004; Masie, 2006; Oliver and Trigwell, 2005;
Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003), however, the most
common position is that blended learning environments combine face-to-face instruction with technology-mediated instruction (Graham, 2006; Graham et
al., 2003). Traditional face-to-face instruction involves
interactions between instructors and learners who are
in the same place, whereas technology-mediated
instruction uses information and communication technologies (ICT) to mediate the learning experience and
interactions without requiring that learners and instructors be located together.
Research suggests three primary reasons for adopting a blended approach to instruction: (1) improved
learning effectiveness, (2) increased access and convenience, and (3) greater cost effectiveness (Graham,
2006). Most often, educators adopt blended learning
approaches to explore gains and tradeoffs in comparison with strictly traditional settings or entirely distributed environments.
270

What are the affordances of face-to-face and

technology-mediated contexts and how can
the strengths of each be used to improve
teaching and learning?
How do short-term student learning outcomes interact with more systemic longer
term student outcomes?
What are the emerging models for assessing
learning outcomes in the blended learning
environment?
What is the appropriate role for students
becoming involved in the assessment of their
own learning effectiveness?

Transformational Potential
Researchers recognize the potential for transforming
learning when combining both face-to-face and technology-mediated instruction (Garrison and Kanuta,
2004; Graham, 2006; Graham and Robison, 2007).
Many allude to this potential when they state that
blended learning capitalizes on the best of both worlds.
The simple elegance of the blended learning concept
can also be a weakness, however, if the focus is entirely
on the mode of instruction rather than the holistic
nature of the learning experience. For example,
instructors commonly state that their course is a blend
that consists of x% online and y% face-to-face, which
is not informative without knowing the nature of the
activities occurring in the distinct learning environments and how the course effectively uses the affordances of the two environments (Cross, 2006). For
blended learning to reach its full transformational
potential, the primary goal should be rethinking and

Blended Learning Environments

redesigning the teaching and learning relationship (i.e.,
improved pedagogy) with efciency and convenience
as possible secondary benets (Garrison and Kanuta,
2004, p. 99). Blended learning must capitalize on the
strengths of both online and face-to-face modalities to
create a more active learning environment (Graham
and Robison, 2007).

acy, and critical thinking into a broader concept of

information uencya foundation for assessment in
blended learning (University of Central Florida, 2005).

ACCESS
Key questions with regard to access include:

Completion Rates and Academic Performance

Current studies on learning effectiveness in blended
courses and programs concentrate on measures such
as grades and withdrawal rates that are highly sensitive
to factors such as course level, college, and department. This instability suggests that using course mode
as an effect in comparison studies is not a particularly
viable line of inquiry; however, some studies have been
directed toward learning effectiveness in blended environments. Rochester Institute of Technologys pilot
program reported that completion rates were approximately 95% (Humbert and Vignare, 2004; Starenko et
al., 2007), and Reasons and colleagues (Reasons,
2004; Reasons et al., 2005) found that fully online
students succeed at rates higher than those in face-toface or blended courses. Additional studies have shown
comparable success in blended courses, yet others
report them as superior regarding learning effectiveness (Boyle et al., 2003; Cottrell and Robinson, 2003;
Dowling et al., 2003; OToole and Absalom, 2003;
Riffell and Sibley, 2004). In larger data-mining studies
of several thousand student registrations, researchers
at the University of Central Florida found that blending
learning courses produced comparable or superior success rates compared to face-to-face or fully online
modes when college and gender contributions are
removed (Dziuban et al., 2006).

Assessment
At present, most assessment mechanisms in blended
learning remain traditional, as they are objective, noncontextual, and inauthentic; however, as the initiative
matures, student assessment will, by necessity, become
interpretive, contextual, and authentic. Brown et al.
(2007) identied several important student perceptions
about the efcacy of assessment techniques in the
blended environment. They found that novice learners
believe that traditional measures such as multiple-choice
tests better reect their learning status than more interpretive measures. More experienced learners, however,
report condence in assessment activities that involve
collaborative work and interactive feedback. These ndings give credence to developing theories that incorporate the nexus of information literacy, technology liter-

How does the enhanced accessibility

afforded by blended learning impact completion rates in higher education?
How does blended learning impact the educational opportunities for under-represented
populations?
How does accessibility interact with quality
of learning?
The issue of learner access is fundamental to blended
learning and includes access to institutions, access to
programs, and access to courses (Mayadas, 2001). The
issue of quality is critical when considering the goal
of access. Shea (2007, pp. 1920) asserts: If quality
suffers, increased access is of no benet. Students
dont want access to low quality programs, faculty do
not wish to teach in such programs, and alumni do not
wish to support such programs.
Three student populations appear to have particular
needs with regard to access: those far from campus, those
near campus, and those on campus. The issue for these
populations hinges on determining the degree to which
faculty and students need alternative instructional modalities (Otte, 2005). In addition, instructional modalities
such as blending might facilitate access to educational
opportunities for students with disabilities. Rochester
Institute of Technology provides an excellent example
of how blended courses can increase educational
opportunities and learning effectiveness for hearingimpaired students (Starenko et al., 2007). Fundamentally, economic principles (e.g., reduced opportunity
costs and comparative advantage) yield advantages for
students who are either on or near campus.

COST EFFECTIVENESS
Key questions regarding cost effectiveness include:
What are some effective models for assessing cost effectiveness in blended learning?
For which contexts (high enrollment courses,
specic disciplines) is cost effectiveness
accepted and valued by stakeholders?
What relationships exist between cost effectiveness and student learning outcomes?
271

Charles R. Graham and Charles Dziuban

The Center for Academic Transformation (Twigg, 2003)
developed the primary models for cost effectiveness in
blended learning. Using these models, several institutions have demonstrated that it is possible to improve
quality and reduce costs, typically through reduced
dependence on human resources. Robinson (2005) demonstrated that, by adding technology to the instructional
design, quality increases, and in most cases costs are
comparable or somewhat lower than face-to-face offerings. The University of Central Florida has reported cost
savings, improved facilities utilization, improved learning, and continued program growth (Dziuban et al.,
2006); however, return on investment cannot be determined via a simple spreadsheet calculation. Many less
tangible factors contribute, including increased success
rates, reduced number of drop outs, and improved faculty and student skills. Depending on the institutional
context and the model chosen, cost savings may or may
not be realized. Blended learning, however, offers real
potential for a positive return on investment.

Several issues mediate student satisfaction with

blended learning. Some studies report consistently
high satisfaction levels for blended courses (Dziuban
et al., 2004), while others indicate somewhat less positive attitudes (Utts et al., 2003). Some studies indicate
that students with an intuitive cognitive style experience a lower sense of community in their blended
courses than students with analytic approaches to
learning (Graff, 2003). Conversely, studies such as
those conducted by Rovai and Jordan (2004) have
revealed a greater sense of community in blended
courses when compared with face-to-face and fully
online courses. Even though investigators report conicting results about student satisfaction, most studies
with substantial and stable samples have found predominately positive reactions; the majority indicate
that convenience, exibility, and the reduced opportunity costs involved in the learning process are the primary factors (Vignare, 2002). These elements tend to
be independent of several potentially biasing factors,
such as class size and discipline.

STUDENT SATISFACTION
Key research questions pertaining to student satisfaction include:

FACULTY SATISFACTION
Key research questions with regard to faculty satisfaction with blended learning include:

What components in a blended learning

environment contribute most to student satisfaction?
In what contexts is student satisfaction a viable outcome measure for learning quality?
How is student satisfaction impacted when
students are given a range of options regarding the nature of the blend in a course?

What factors lead to faculty satisfaction in

blended learning?
What models do we have for supporting faculty adoption of blended learning?
How do faculty workloads relate to satisfaction with blended learning in the context of
tenure and promotion?

Student issues in blended learning emerge from the

traditional academy and from the burgeoning online
environments in higher education. Prensky (2001a,b)
suggested that digital natives (the millennial generation), who expect the immediacy of technology, collaborative learning opportunities, and active learning
environments, force faculty and administrators to
adopt more effective pedagogies. Oblinger and
Oblinger (2005) claim that for these students computers and personal technologies are a way of life. The
Internet is more important to them than television, and
they learn primarily through the processes of trial and
error (Bisoux, 2002; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005). We
should not be surprised, therefore, that some tension
exists between the millennial generations preferred
learning styles and what higher education currently
offerseven in blended courses (Aviles et al., 2005).

Faculty satisfaction is an important element that supports or detracts from the adoption of blended learning.
The University of Central Florida reported that 88%
of the faculty who taught blended courses were satised with the course and would teach in a blended
format again in the future, but only 41% of the faculty
in the Rochester Institute of Technology Blended
Learning Pilot Project expressed a similar interest
(Dziuban et al., 2004; RIT Online Learning Department, 2005). Many documented factors inuence faculty satisfaction (Hartman et al., 2000). Three major
elements are (1) impact on learning, (2) impact on
workload, and (3) recognition that faculty efforts are
valued. Many faculty members adopt blended learning
because they believe it will improve learning effectiveness; some also believe that it will add convenience
and improve their efciency.

272

Blended Learning Environments

Increasingly, faculty are acquiring new technological skills and assuming new role expectations associated with those skills (Dziuban et al., 2006; Kaleta et
al., 2007). In blended learning, the faculty must master
the skills of both the face-to-face instructor and the
online facilitator; thus, most research reports that
implementing blended learning requires additional faculty time and effort (Kaleta et al., 2007; Lee and Im,
2006; Lefoe and Hedberg, 2006). The faculty time
investment can be reduced through properly designed
professional development and instructional support services such as training opportunities and performance
support systems. Many faculty members incur the additional workload costs because they see the benets for
student learning (Starenko et al., 2007) or because they
view the extra workload as a cost that will diminish as
they become more comfortable with the new technological tools. Although research cites faculty recognition and compensation as key elements in successful
blended programs, only one fth of higher education
institutions report providing formal recognition and
rewards for technology integration (Green, 2004).

ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Key research questions with regard to organizational
considerations and their impact on blended learning
include:
What organizational components should be
in place for blended learning to become a
systemic initiative?
How will blended learning manifest itself in
different organizational contexts such as
community colleges, metropolitan research
universities, and liberal arts colleges?
What impact is blended learning having on
the traditional academy?
Institutional support mechanisms play a vital role in
the success of blended courses and programs. In considering an optimal institutional climate, Hartman
(2005) suggested that the organizational foundation
should be built on theories of practice where the academic units are able nd a common ground for instructional development. He specied that the elements of
those theories should address instructional models,
faculty development issues, course development structures, and effective assessment designs, both institutional and at the course level. Further, an effective
institutional model should undergo continuous renement and development while the institution develops

increased organizational capacity. Hartman argued that

an effective institutional approach demands up-front
executive buy-in and early infusion into the colleges
and departments. Further prerequisites involve facultyand student-centered approaches that make blended
learning something the institution is rather than something it does (Hartman, 2005).

RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
We now focus on two important areas for future
research: institutional research and learning effectiveness research.

Institutional Research
Faculty Adoption
Ultimately, the success or failure of blended approaches
hinges on widespread faculty adoption of effective practices. We know relatively little about why faculty adopt
and implement a specic blended instructional model
and how they are making the instructional choices
involved in course redesign (Kaleta et al., 2007). Some
course redesign efforts are systemic in nature, such as
the 30 projects supported by the Center for Academic
Transformation (Twigg, 2003). The majority of
change, however, is occurring through a process that
Collis and van der Wende (2002) refer to as stretching
the mold. In a campus-wide survey of faculty, Graham
and Robison (2007) found that over one third of the
faculty reported having taught a blended course, but
many of the blends only made small enhancements to
practice and did not change teaching and learning in
signicant or transformative ways. We need to learn
how to avoid some of the traps historically associated
with the adoption of technology-rich solutions, such
as embracing rigid practices, status quo adherence, or
a tendency for educational systems to preserve themselves by domesticating new technologies to support
old practices (Beckwith, 1988; Salomon, 2002).
Models for Support and Training
Research supports the supposition that institutional
support is necessary for mainstream faculty and students to adopt blended learning. Issues that require
investigation include: (1) how to minimize increased
demands on faculty and student time; (2) how to provide instructors and learners with the necessary skills
to succeed, particularly in the technology-mediated
environment; and (3) how to change the organizational
culture into one willing to accept innovations such as

273

Charles R. Graham and Charles Dziuban

blended learning. Other research might investigate
models for faculty support and training in blended
environments and what aspects of the models are transferable to other contexts.

Learning Effectiveness Research

Conceptual Frameworks and Models
Design problems, such as creating a blended environment, are highly context dependent, with an almost
innite number of possible solutions. Researchers
should better articulate conceptual frameworks that
will serve blended contexts (Shea, 2007). The community of inquiry model is one possible framework (Garrison et al., 2000; Garrison and Vaughan, 2007), but it
would be more helpful to have a range of rich blended
learning models so designers could design tradeoffs in
their own specic contexts.
Role of Live Interaction vs.
Computer-Mediated Communication
Under what conditions is human interaction important
to the learning outcomes and learner satisfaction with
the experience? When and why should we be considering human interaction such as collaboration and
learning communities (Alavi and Dufner, 2005)? How
does live interaction vs. low-delity asynchronous
interaction affect the learning experience? These questions are just a few that are directly relevant to deciding
when to have face-to-face or technology-mediated
interactions between participants or with a nonhuman
instructional system. Some evidence indicates that
learners in blended environments place greater value
or emphasis on the face-to-face components, while
other ndings suggest that the face-to-face elements
are unnecessary (Graham, 2006). Research related to
better understanding the nature of human interaction
in blended learning environments is a promising direction of inquiry (Shea, 2007).
Role of Learner Choice and Self-Regulation
How are learners making choices about the kinds of
blends in which they are participating? Are choices
being made primarily on the basis of convenience and
exibility? How much information and guidance are
being provided to learners to help them make decisions
about how different blends will affect their learning
experience? Online components are perceived as
requiring a greater amount of discipline for learners to
succeed (Allen and Seaman, 2005), so how can blended
environments be designed to support increasing learner
maturity and capabilities for self-regulation?

274

CONCLUSIONS
Learning environments have affordances that facilitate
or constrain different types of interactions and activities.
Although much can be learned and synthesized from
research in both distance and traditional learning environments, blended environments provide a paradigm
that is different than just a linear combination of the two;
for example, reactions to the use of computer-mediated
discussions can be quite different in a course that also
meets face-to-face vs. a completely online course (An
and Frick, 2006; Schweizer et al., 2003; Yanes, 2004).
In a completely online course, the computer-mediated
discussion may be valued as the only means of human
interaction, while in the blended context learners might
perceive it as a low-delity, time-consuming channel for
communication. Faculty and learners will take advantage of the opportunities in their learning environments
based on their expectations, goals, and understanding of
the learning possibilities within the environment. Currently, only a small (but growing) body of research is
specically related to blended environments. We need
more research on the design of blended environments
and how instructors and learners engage in the act of
teaching and learning in these environments.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M. and Dufner, D. (2005). Technology-mediated collaborative learning: a research perspective. In Learning
Together Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks, edited by S. R. Hiltz and R. Goldman, pp. 191213.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Allen, I. E. and Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by Degrees: Online
Education in the United States, 2005. Needham, MA: Sloan
Consortium.
An, Y.-J. and Frick, T. (2006). Student perceptions of asynchronous computer-mediated communication in face-to-face
courses [electronic version]. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun.,
11, Article 5 (http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ an.html).
Aviles, K., Phillips, B., Rosenblatt, T., and Vargas, J. (2005). If
higher education listened to me. EDUCAUSE Rev., 40(5),
1628.
Beckwith, D. (1988). The future of educational technology.
Can. J. Educ. Commun., 17(1), 320.
Bisoux, T. (2002). Rethinking IT. BizEd, Jan./Feb., 3034.
Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., and Pickard, P.
(2003). Using blended learning to improve student success
in learning to program. J. Educ. Media, 28(23), 165178.
Brown, G., Smith, T., and Henderson, T. (2007). Student perceptions of assessment efcacy in online and blended
classes. In Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, edited
by A. G. Picciano and C. D. Dziuban, pp. 145160.
Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Collis, B. and van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of Technology
and Change in Higher Education: An International Comparative Survey on the Current and Future Use of ICT in
Higher Education. Enschede, the Netherlands: Center for
Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente.

Blended Learning Environments

Collis, B., Bianco, M., Margaryan, A., and Waring, B. (2005).
Putting blended learning to work: a case study from a multinational oil company. Educ. Commun. Inform., 5(3),
233250.*
Cottrell, D. M. and Robinson, R. A. (2003). Blended learning in
an accounting course. Q. Rev. Distance Educ., 4(3), 261269.
Cross, J. (2006). Foreword. In Handbook of Blended Learning:
Global Perspectives, Local Designs, edited by C. J. Bonk
and C. R. Graham, pp. xviixxiii. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer Publishing.*
Dowling, C., Godfrey, J. M., and Gyles, N. (2003). Do hybrid
exible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students learning outcomes? Account. Educ., 12(4), 373391.
Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: lets get beyond the hype
[electronic version]. e-Learning, 54 (http://elearningmag.
com/ltimagazine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=11755).
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J., and Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended
learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Res. (ECAR) Res.
Bull., 2004(7), 112.
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P. D., and Sorg,
S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local
Designs, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp.
195208. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.*
Dziuban, C., Shea, P., and Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). Faculty roles
and satisfaction in asynchronous learning networks. In
Learning Together Online: Research on Asynchronous
Learning Networks, edited by S. R. Hiltz and R. Goldman,
pp. 169190. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Finn, A. (2002). Trends in e-learning [electronic version].
Learning Circuits, 3 (http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/
nov2002/nn.htm).
Garrison, D. R. and Kanuta, H. (2004). Blended learning:
uncovering its transformative potential in higher education.
Internet Higher Educ., 7(2), 95105.*
Garrison, D. R. and Vaughan, N. (2007). Blended Learning in
Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2000). Critical
inquiry in a text-based environment: computer-conferencing
in higher education. Internet Higher Educ., 11(1), 114.
Graff, M. (2003). Individual differences in sense of classroom
community in a blended learning environment. J. Educ.
Media, 28(23), 203210.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: denition,
current trends, and future directions. In Handbook of
Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs,
edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 321. San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.*
Graham, C. R. and Robison, R. (2007). Realizing the transformational potential of blended learning: comparing cases of
transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher education. In Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, edited by
A. G. Picciano and C. D. Dziuban, pp. 83110. Needham,
MA: Sloan Consortium.
Graham, C. R., Allen, S., and Ure, D. (2003). Blended Learning
Environments: A Review of the Research Literature,
http://msed.byu.edu/ipt/graham/vita/ble_litrev.pdf.
Green, K. C. (2004). Campus Computing 2004: The 15th
National Survey of Computing and Information Technology
in American Higher Education. Encino, CA: The Campus
Computing Project.
Harris, P. (2005). Trainings new wave. Train. Dev., 59(8),
4548.

Hartman, J. (2005). Online@UCF. Paper presented at the SloanC Workshop on Blended Learning, April 1719, Chicago, IL.
Hartman, J., Dziuban, C., and Moskal, P. (2000). Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: a dependent or independent variable? J.
Asynchr. Learn. Netw., 4(3), 155179.
Humbert, J. and Vignare, K. (2004). RIT introduces blended
learning successfully. In Engaging Communities: Wisdom
from the Sloan Consortium, edited by J. C. Moore, pp.
141152. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Jones, N. (2006). e-College Wales, a case study of blended
learning. In Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R.
Graham, pp. 182194. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., and Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering,
designing, and delivering hybrid courses. In Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, edited by A. G. Picciano and C.
D. Dziuban, pp. 111144. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Kirkley, S. E. and Kirkley, J. R. (2005). Creating next generation
blended learning environments using mixed reality, video
games and simulations. TechTrends, 49(3), 4253.
Kirkley, J. R. and Kirkley, S. E. (2006). Expanding the boundaries of blended learning: transforming learning with mixed
and virtual reality technologies. In Handbook of Blended
Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, edited by C.
J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 533549. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer Publishing.
Laster, S. (2004). Blended learning: driving forward without a
denition. In Engaging Communities: Wisdom from the
Sloan Consortium, edited by J. C. Moore. Needham, MA:
Sloan Consortium.
Lee, O. and Im, Y. (2006). The emergence of the cyber-university and blended learning in Korea. In Handbook of Blended
Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, edited by C.
J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 281295. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer Publishing.
Lefoe, G. and Hedberg, J. G. (2006). Blending on and off
campus: a tale of two cities. In Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, edited by C. J.
Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 325337. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer Publishing.
Lewis, N. J. and Orton, P. Z. (2006). Blended learning for
business impact. In Handbook of Blended Learning: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R.
Graham, pp. 6175. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Lorenzo, G. and Moore, J. C. (2002). The Sloan Consortium
Report to the Nation: Five Pillars of Quality Online Education [electronic version], http://www.sloan-c.org/effective/
pillarreport1.pdf.
Masie, E. (2006). The blended learning imperative. In Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local
Designs, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 2226.
San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.*
Mayadas, F. (2001). Testimony to the Kerrey Commission on
Web-based education. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw., 5(1),
134138.
Newton, D. and Ellis, A. (2005). Effective implementation of
e-learning: a case study of the Australian army. J. Workplace
Learn., 17(5/6), 385397.
Oblinger, D. G. and Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the Net
Generation, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf.
Oliver, M. and Trigwell, K. (2005). Can blended learning be
redeemed? E-learning, 2(1), 1726.

275

Charles R. Graham and Charles Dziuban

Osguthorpe, R. T. and Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning
systems: denitions and directions. Q. Rev. Distance Educ.,
4(3), 227234.*
OToole, J. M. and Absalom, D. J. (2003). The impact of
blended learning on student outcomes: is there room on the
horse for two? J. Educ. Media, 28(23), 179190.
Otte, G. (2005). Using blended learning to drive faculty development (and visa versa). In Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities, Vol. 6, edited by J. Bourne and
J. C. Moore, pp. 7184. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On
Horizon, 9(5), 16.
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part
2. Do they really think differently? On Horizon, 9(6), 16.
Reasons, S. G. (2004). Hybrid courses: hidden dangers? Distance Educ. Rep., 8(7), 37.
Reasons, S. G., Valadares, K., and Slavkin, M. (2005). Questioning the hybrid model: student outcomes in different
course formats. J. Asynchr. Learn., 9(1), 8394.
Riffell, S. K. and Sibley, D. F. (2004). Can hybrid course formats increase attendance in undergraduate environmental
science courses? J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., 33, 15.
RIT Online Learning Department. (2005). Blended Learning
Pilot Project [electronic version], http://online.rit.edu/faculty/instructional_design/blended/RITBlendedPilotFinalReport.pdf.
Robison, R. (2005). The business of online education: are we
cost competitive? In Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities, edited by J. Bourne and J.
C. Moore, pp. 173181. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Rovai, A. P. and Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and
sense of community: a comparative analysis with traditional
and fully online graduate courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist.
Learn., 5(2), 13.
Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: why dont we
see the promised revolution? Educ. Technol., 42(2), 7175.
Schweizer, K., Paechter, M., and Weidenmann, B. (2003).
Blended learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task
performance. J. Educ. Media, 28(23), 211224.

276

Shea, P. (2007). Towards a conceptual framework for learning

in blended environments. In Blended Learning: Research
Perspectives, edited by A. G. Picciano and C. D. Dziuban,
pp. 1936. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Starenko, M., Vignare, K., and Humbert, J. (2007). Enhancing
student interaction and sustaining faculty instructional innovations through blended learning. In Blended Learning:
Research Perspectives, edited by A. G. Picciano and C. D.
Dziuban, pp. 161178. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Twigg, C. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: new
models for online learning. EDUCAUSE Rev.,
38(Sept./Oct.), 2838.
University of Central Florida. (2005). Quality Enhancement Program: Information Fluency Initiative, http://www.if.ucf.edu/.
Utts, J., Sommer, B., Acredolo, M. W., Maher, M. W., and
Matthews, H. R. (2003). A study comparing traditional and
hybrid internet-based instruction in introductory statistics
classes. J. Stat. Educ., 11(3), 171173.
Vignare, K. (2002). Longitudinal success measures of online
learning students at the Rochester Institute of Technology.
In Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and
Direction, Vol. 4, edited by J. Bourne and J. C. Moore, pp.
261278. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Wenger, M. S. and Ferguson, C. (2006). A learning ecology
model for blended learning from Sun Microsystems. In
Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local
Designs, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 7691.
San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Wisher, R. A. (2006). Blended learning in military training. In
Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local
Designs, edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp.
519532. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Yanes, M. J. (2004). Distance education in traditional classes:
a hybrid model. Q. Rev. Distance Educ., 5(4), 265276.
Young, J. R. (2002). Hybrid teaching seeks to end the divide
between traditional and online instruction. Chron. High.
Educ., March 22, A-33.*
* Indicates a core reference.