Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MARIE-JOSE VERKROOST
International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation,
The Netherlands
verkroost@itc.nl
LEONIE MEIJERINK
VSO Nederland, The Netherlands
l.meijerink@vso.nl
HARRY LINTSEN
Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
h.w.lintsen@tue.nl
WIM VEEN
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
w.veen@tudelft.nl
Since the 1990s much experience has been gained with regard to online
learning environments. While there is potential for distance learning, espe-
500 Verkroost, Meijerink, Lintsen, and Veen
The general picture seems to be that there is much ICT in use, not
to replace traditional on-campus settings, rather to complement
them. “Blended learning” using ICT (especially Web-based sys-
tems) combined with lectures, books, and other traditional media
and ways of teaching is already the norm. (p.29)
METHOD
Society and Technology Case Study
The Science and Technology module of TUD is designed to stimulate stu-
dents to look outside the borders of their technical discipline and to look at its
relationship with society. In the module students have to analyze a problem
resulting from the interaction of science and technology from six perspectives
(Figure 2) to create an informed opinion about the problem. The perspectives
are derived from theory about and experience with solving these kinds of
problems by the teacher. The teacher, who is an expert in this area, has vali-
dated the model by consulting
experts in the field. Examples
of the questions that students
choose to analyze are: Does the
Dutch society have to adopt
solar energy? What should we
do to protect the Dutch society
from Internet fraud? The vari-
ous problems associated with
these questions are analyzed
from the perspectives of rele- Figure 2. Method for problem analysis in
vant groups of people or deci- society and technology
506 Verkroost, Meijerink, Lintsen, and Veen
sion makers, history, technology, the engineering profession, and causes and
effects of technology. These perspectives are used to structure the content of
the course and obligatory assignments have to be completed per perspective.
The analysis process is started by formulating a problem definition which is
used as the starting point of the analysis from the different viewpoints.
The module consists of a start-up lecture about the content and organiza-
tion of the module. After this lecture, students work together in independent
groups. A tutor (teaching assistant) meets with each group weekly and coun-
sels the group. There is one overall responsible teacher for the module at a
specific faculty. The responsibility for keeping track of a groups’ progress
and the assessment is given to a group of teachers who are each responsible
for multiple groups. The teachers function in the background, they support
the tutors. The tutors carry out most of the teaching work of the module
while the teachers monitor this and give feedback. Teachers and tutors meet
on a regular basis to exchange experiences and discuss problems. This divi-
sion of roles was developed to minimize the costs of teaching the module.
Some learning tasks are done in groups and some are done individually.
The problem analysis is conducted by a group but each student also has to
write an essay on the topic. In this essay, the student has to explain his or her
own opinion about the problem and support this with findings drawn from
the group analysis. The essay is graded individually. This assessment form
was chosen to overcome the problem of putting the workload of the group
on only a small number of group members.
An electronic learning environment, called STUDIO, has been developed
to support the students’ work and learning. STUDIO consists of a Website
on the Internet (www.studio.tbm.tudelft.nl), linked to a database. This learn-
ing environment is necessary to teach the subject in a blended way. Students
can find background information on the website and they can make assign-
ments, communicate with each other, and work together. The web-site is
designed in such a way that all the work and learning can take place using
STUDIO, which consists of three main parts: (a) a student part, (b) a teacher
part, and (c) a management part.
The STUDIO student environment contains the electronic forms for the
different perspectives, information and cases, internet links, definitions,
explanations, frequently asked questions, and tools for communication such
as chat, electronic mail, and a discussion board.
The STUDIO teacher environment is set up to monitor students’ and
groups’ progress. In this environment the teacher can look at students’ prod-
ucts, give feedback on these and give assessments. STUDIO teacher also
offers tools for communication with students or groups of students like chat,
email and discussion boards.
The STUDIO management environment is meant for persons who man-
age module editions and module content. The manager can define the time-
Finding a Balance in Dimensions of Blended Learning 507
frame of the module, phases within this timeframe, assessment moments, the
set of perspectives that have to be filled out by the students, available model
cases, students and teachers enrolled in the course, which teacher is assigned
to which students and student group composition.
At the time that STUDIO was developed, learning environments such as
Blackboard, WebCT, and LearningSpace had limited functionalities. The
most prominent lacking features were workflow and tracking of student
progress. This is the reason why it was decided to build a whole new system.
Nowadays learning management systems contain more of these features and
it would be possible to build STUDIO on such a platform.
Subjects
The research data was gathered for the period from September 2001 until
January 2003 at Delft University of Technology. The module S&T was
taught for the first time at the Faculty of Information Technology and Sys-
tems (ITS) in the first semester of 2001-2002. The module was taught for the
second time at the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management (TPM)
and the Faculty of Architecture in the first semester of 2002-2003. The mod-
ule was taught for the third time at the faculties of Architecture and ITS in
the second semester of 2002-2003. The students taking the course at ITS and
TPM were first-year students, whereas the students from the Faculty of
Architecture were in the third year of their study.
Research Design
A case study design was used to conduct the research (Yin, 1994). Infor-
mation from different sources, teachers, students, and tutors, was used to
reconstruct the Society and Technology case. The elements of blended learn-
ing, given in Figure 1 were used to describe the case and to look for answers
to the research questions. Both quantitative and qualitative instruments were
used. The quantitative instrument, a student questionnaire, was used to get
information about the experiences and opinions of the student group as a
whole. The qualitative instruments were used to clarify positions and opin-
ions of students and teachers with examples and statements.
A longitudinal approach was used to gather data in three rounds; this
allowed us to identify developments. The educational and technological set-
ting changed during the period of the case study, a short description of the
changes is given here.
In round 1, the educational setting was set up according to the original
ideas of the project group, that is, with a minimum of contact between stu-
dents and teachers. The digital learning environment STUDIO was used in
practice for the first time. Many technical problems such as loss of data and
instability were encountered and solved along the way.
In the second round, the educational setting was according to the original
508 Verkroost, Meijerink, Lintsen, and Veen
ideas of the project group. Evaluation of the first round led to improvements
of the digital learning environment STUDIO, and a new version of STUDIO
was made available for the second round.
In the third round, the educational setting changed drastically. Lectures
and information search introductions were added and there were some
experiments with different forms of counseling. The digital learning envi-
ronment of STUDIO did not change.
Instruments
Several instruments were used to evaluate the module and the digital
learning environment STUDIO: student questionnaires, interviews, and
meeting reports.
Student questionnaires. Three questionnaires were developed and used in
the evaluation. The questionnaires were altered over time in response to
insights gained by prior interviews, questionnaires, and reports, and differ-
ent information needs, because of this the questions that were asked differed
per evaluation round. A negative side-effect of the change in the question-
naires is that it led to heterogeneity in the data. In order to clarify which data
were collected in which evaluation round, the data are presented per round
and not as a total. The questionnaires were administered at the end of each
module. The topics that were addressed per questionnaire, and their response
rates, are shown in Tables 1 and 2. A “plus” in Table 2 means that this ques-
tion was part of the questionnaire in that round. The response rates in the
second and third round were rather low because the modules contained no
plenary meeting at the end and it was difficult to distribute questionnaires
effectively among students and to stimulate them to respond from a distance.
dents. The following subjects were addressed in the interviews: the way the
problem was analyzed, the structure that was offered for problem analysis,
how the group worked and what support they needed, the structure of pacing
and order, motivation, learning effects, and the role of the teacher and tutor.
Meeting reports. Evaluation sessions with the coordinator of the module and
six tutors were recorded and transcripts were made in the second semester
of 2002-2003. The following topics were discussed: functioning and lay-out
of the STUDIO teacher environment, assessment of student products, the
way students used STUDIO and its content, student facilities for learning at
a distance, computerset pacing, the use of communication tools, technical
functionality of STUDIO, module organization, structure of course content,
available information and resources in STUDIO, group functionality, bal-
ancing face-to-face and distance learning, and peer assessment.
Structured/Unstructured
The module S&T was designed in a highly prestructured manner because
the target group consisted of first-year students who had just entered uni-
versity. The structure had to protect them from the pitfalls of being new at
the university and it had to enable them to learn about and use the analytical
framework for problem analysis (see Figure 2) that governs the whole mod-
ule. Although the main part of the modules relies on structure, there are also
unstructured aspects in the module.
Structure of science and technology module content. The S&T module
content was highly structured when reviewed from the perspectives of the
framework for analysis (see Figure 2). The search for information necessary
to carry out problem analysis was a less structured aspect of the S&T mod-
ule. The digital learning environment STUDIO offered some support in the
form of a few general links to Websites about certain topics. In practice a lot
of students had problems with finding enough information for their analysis.
Therefore, instruction on ways to carry out information searches was added
to the S&T module in the third round. With respect to this dimension the
designed module and the module in practice were quite similar. The balance
Finding a Balance in Dimensions of Blended Learning 511
Splitting up the problem into forms works quite well, except that it
makes it very “prechewed” as a result it seems like just a “fill-out”
exercise and we are tempted not to go in depth. Following the style
of the model case it is quite easy to fill out something similar but
whether I learn a lot from it is doubtful.
Individual/Group
The designed S&T module consists mostly of group work with a little
individual work at the end. Group work was chosen by the course designers
for pragmatic reasons, like division of work and lessening the workload of
the teacher, rather than for pedagogical reasons. Collaborative learning was
not used in this module as pedagogy; it was used as a didactical method. The
group work consisted of choosing a problem to analyze and analyzing the
problem according to the provided framework. Having finished the analysis
in their groups the students had to form their opinion about the problem and
then write an essay demonstrating their individual viewpoint. In practice,
however, a lot of the group work was done individually in the S&T module.
Finding a Balance in Dimensions of Blended Learning 513
The groups tended to split up the tasks between members and to meet once
in a while to discuss progress and exchange ideas. Therefore, the initial
design of the group has changed over time to a more individual situation.
This development is logical because the different perspectives lend them-
selves easily to task division, given the week connections between the per-
spectives. The evaluation of the balance between individual and group work
took place at two levels: the balance between group work at the beginning
and individual work at the end of the module, and the balance between
working together as a group and working individually within a group.
The balance between the group and individual work. The group work is
designed to support the individual work at the end of the S&T module, the
point at which students have to formulate an individual opinion about the
problem while integrating the information they have found out as a group.
In practice only a small part of the students (round 1: 24.1%) thought that
writing the essay took little extra work after finishing the group work. A
small part of the students also thought that the individual part helped them
to integrate the things they had learned in the group work part (round 2:
32.2%; round 3: 32.6%).
Face-to-Face/At-a-Distance
The designed module consisted of both face-to-face and learning activi-
ties at a distance, with an emphasis on distance learning. Distance learning
took place through the digital learning environment STUDIO and consisted
of filling out forms and communications using chat and message boards.
Face-to-face activities consisted of group meetings, meetings with the coun-
seling teaching assistant, and an introduction lecture. Many more activities
were done face-to-face in the module in practice and the balance changed to
more face-to-face learning. This is logical because the students in this mod-
ule were able to meet face-to-face and the students liked to meet face-to-face
when possible.
Face-to-face contacts with the group and the counseling meetings with
the tutor were valued very highly by the students. Face-to-face meetings
were valued as useful by most of the students (round 3: 86.2%). The tutor’s
help was also valued highly by most students (round 1: 76.8%; round 2:
45%). However, some of the tutors in the evaluation rounds said that they
had experienced difficulties in planning group meetings. Students often did
not plan meetings and worked online on the electronic forms, they also did
not plan time to ask each other for feedback. The students also said they
experienced problems with finding a time when everyone was available for
group meetings. Tutors indicated that it was difficult for them to organize a
proper work place with computer access.
The digital learning environment STUDIO was not used for communica-
tion between group members. The message board was used in round 3 by
28.7% of the students and the chat function by 41.9% of the students. Elec-
tronic mail and face-to-face meetings were the most used communication
tools in round 3 (Electronic mail: 79.3%; face-to-face: 83.7%) but these
forms of communication fall outside the STUDIO environment. This kind of
communication was considered to be easier and more effective. The message
board was used to make appointments with the tutor, but could not be used to
Finding a Balance in Dimensions of Blended Learning 515
Self-/Teacher-Directed
In the designed S&T module, the student was made responsible for his or
her own learning and the balance lay with the student. There was one intro-
ductory lecture, after this the students had to work for themselves with the
help of a tutor. They did not meet with the teacher, only with the tutor. In the
S&T module in practice students had problems with taking control of their
learning processes and working in a group. Extra lectures were added in the
third round in conjunction with weekly meetings with the tutors to deal with
this problem. As this approach takes a lot of tutor time, experiments were
also made with different kinds of counseling by the tutor during the third
round: counseling on demand or counseling at a fixed time. The balance has
moved towards being more teacher centered.
Although the students were very positive about the tutor, they would have
liked to have more contact with the teacher (round 2: 58.6%). A small part
of the students felt that they could go to the teacher with their problems
(round 2: 19.6%). Some students added in the interview that they did not
know who the teachers of the module were. The reason some students gave
for wanting to have more direct contact with their teacher is that they real-
ized that the teacher is the person who assesses them in the end of the S&T
module and not the tutor.
Experiments with different forms of counseling from the tutor were con-
ducted in the third round. At the Faculty of Architecture, the meetings with
the tutor were scheduled each week at a regular time. At the Faculty of ITS
the students met with the tutor at their request. Both groups of students were
satisfied with the way the counseling was set up (Architecture: 88.9%; ITS:
94%), however, the students from the Faculty of Architecture preferred to
have meetings at their request (77.8%). The students of the Faculty of ITS
wanted to stick to the current system of meetings on request (80.3%).
516 Verkroost, Meijerink, Lintsen, and Veen
Originally, there was only one introduction lecture scheduled. In the third
round, some lectures were added because it was thought that the students
needed some extra theoretical background. Five extra lectures were sched-
uled at the Faculty of Architecture; one extra lecture was scheduled at the
Faculty of ITS. The students evaluated these extra lectures rather negative-
ly. The students of the Faculty of Architecture, 64.7% thought the lectures
did not give insight into the analysis framework and 70.5% thought the lec-
tures did not support the group assignment. The students of the Faculty of
ITS showed about the same results, 77.8% of the students thought the lec-
ture did not give insight into the analysis framework and 79.7% thought the
lecture did not support the group assignment.
CONCLUSIONS
Structured/Unstructured
Which level of structure is best, depends on the level of self-regulation of
the student and the students’ knowledge of the subject of the course. In the
case of the S&T module a highly structured format was chosen for the mod-
ule as designed because first-year students with little experience of univer-
sity life, and with the subject, are the target group. The module in practice
shows that the target group is heterogeneous and that some students appre-
ciate structure and others do not. A good learning environment should be
adaptive to these differences; STUDIO does not have this facility. Structure
was valued positively because it supported them as they conducted their
learning activities and worked towards reaching their learning goals. Struc-
ture was valued negatively because it made students feel they were in a
straight jacket and that the learning was consequently a fill out the blanks
exercise, this could lead to students underestimating the knowledge level
they had to reach. Students like to have control over the order and pacing in
which they “zap” through their learning activities (Veen, 2003).
The Internet as a source for content is easily accessible but its use does
not always lead to a good and useful results because it is a highly unstruc-
tured environment. Support for the search on the Internet can be offered
using (online) instructions and a list of resources. Students value these kinds
of support more when they address the personal information needs of the
students as an individual.
518 Verkroost, Meijerink, Lintsen, and Veen
Individual/Group
The choice for individual or group work can be made on different
grounds and depends largely on the place in the curriculum, the added value
of group work over individual work and the students’ prior experiences with
group work. These preconditions have to be taken into account and steer the
design of a blended learning environment. In the case of S&T group work
was chosen as a cooperative pedagogy to save the teacher’s time. As a con-
sequence the groups functioned more like a work team than a learning team,
each student conducting his own task. Explicit attention to sharing learning
in the group meetings and peer review can promote group learning.
It is also possible to combine group and individual work. In the S&T case
an individual assignment and assessment after group work was used to
assess how much the individual student had learned during the course. The
cooperative pedagogy and the group functioning as work teams made that
students were not always prepared for the individual part at the end. They
had not learned from their group members and got into difficulties when
they had to write a reflective essay about the total work of the group indi-
vidually. This experience makes clear that the group work and individual
work should be well integrated and consequences of a chosen pedagogy
should be well thought out.
Face-to-Face/At-a-Distance
The choice for face-to-face education or education at-a-distance is often
guided by preconditions such as the working and learning situation of the
learner and travel distance. The S&T module is taught at a traditional cam-
pus with full-time students. The learning culture at Delft University of Tech-
nology is rather traditional with considerable student-teacher interaction.
This may be one reason why students value the face-to-face approach and
the balance between face-to-face and distance education in the module S&T
has developed over time from an online into a more face-to-face approach.
In other situations, where students live at a distance or study part-time a
face-to-face approach can be impossible and a distance approach will be
necessary and perceived as more natural. Despite the shift towards more
face-to-face education in the S&T case, the groups also have worked togeth-
er at-a-distance. Communication was an important issue.
For communicating at-a-distance students mainly used communication
tools which were already used by them, such as a mobile phone, email and
short message services (sms). An investment in expensive communication
tools in the STUDIO digital environment appeared to be superfluous. Some
students did have problems with expressing their opinions on digital com-
munication forms. If these kinds of problems exist, students should be given
coaching on how to use digital communication forms effectively.
Finding a Balance in Dimensions of Blended Learning 519
Self/Teacher Directed
Making students responsible for their own learning is important, how-
ever, there is a need to consider, in advance, what level of responsibility
the students can handle and how the new competencies required for self
directed learning can be acquired. Educational practice is often more
teacher centered than student centered because first-year students have
difficulty dealing with the responsibilities they face when they enter uni-
versity. In secondary education in the Netherlands attention is given to
project work and group work but students do not always show skills in
these areas when they enter the university. The question is: How can we
deal with this situation? When designing a self-directed e-learning system
it is important to think of ways of supporting students in the new compe-
tencies they need for self-directed learning. Additional lectures on the
theoretical background have not proven immediately successful for the
S&T module at TUD.
DISCUSSION
The Value of the Model
The results of one case can give an impulse to considering designing
other blended learning environments. The recognition of others’ experiences
can also support the teacher finding his way into blended learning. The expe-
rience with one case suggests that the model and the four dimensions can be
useful in the design and development of effective blended learning environ-
ments. It has be used to give insight into the functioning of the module Soci-
ety and Technology at TUD, and it has been used to point out the challenges
still facing the designers of the module.
The broad definition of blended learning, used in this article, has given
some problems in restricting the evaluation and the focus of the article.
When blended learning is defined as the total pedagogical mix all princi-
ples for good education have to be taken into account. Some researchers
(Driscoll, 2002; Oliver & Trigwell, 2005) therefore state that blended
learning is not new, it is just a redefinition of old principles. However, we
feel that the incorporation of the use of ICT into pedagogical models as
an essential element instead of an add-on afterwards will lead to a trans-
formation of educational practice and not duplication of old practices
with new tools.
520 Verkroost, Meijerink, Lintsen, and Veen
Future Research
This article develops and uses a model for blended learning within the
setting of one case. The results concerning the value of the model and the
balancing with dimensions of blended learning are therefore of restricted
value. Application of this model in other cases can give an impulse to the
refinement of the model and the identification of preconditions which are
important in balancing the dimensions. This is in agreement with the move-
ment in instructional design, where educationalists are trying to define
generic principles for the design of instructional material rather than using
the variety of models that exist today. (Westen, Gandell, McAlpine, & Fikel-
stein, 1999; Dijkstra, 2001; Merrill, 2002).
References
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32,347-364.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Clark, D. (2003). Blended learning. An Epic white paper. Brighton, UK: Epic Group. Retrieved April
20, 2008, from http://www.epic.co.uk/content/resources/white_papers/Epic_Whtp_blended.pdf
Collis, B., & Wende, M. van der (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education.
An international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher education.
Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.utwente.nl/cheps/documenten/ictrapport.pdf
Dahlgren, L.O. (1984). Outcomes of learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds), The
experience of learning (p.19-35). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.
Dijkstra, S. (2001). The design space for solving instructional design problems. Instructional
Science, 29, 275-290.
Driscoll, M. (2002, March 1). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. LTI Newsline.
Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in
higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.
Gay, G., Trumbull, D., & Smith, J. (1988). Perceptions of control and use of control options in
computer-assisted video instruction. TechTrends, 33(5), 31-33.
Harrison, M. (2003). Blended learning II. Blended learning in practice. An Epic White Paper.
Brighton, UK: Epic Group. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.epic.co.uk/content/
resources/white_papers/Epic_Whtp_blended_practice_180703.pdf
Itzkan, S.J. (1994) Policy and leadership. Assessing the future of telecomputing environments:
Implications for instruction and administration. Computing Teacher, 22(4), 60-64.
Jochems, W., Merrienboer, J. van, & Koper, R. (2004). An introduction to integrated e-learning.
In W. Jochems, J. van Merrienboer, R. Koper (Eds.), Integrated e-learning. Implications for
pedagogy, technology and organization. London: Routledge Falmer.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Scott, L. (1978). The effects of cooperative and individual
instruction on student attitudes and achievement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104,
207-216.
Finding a Balance in Dimensions of Blended Learning 521
Tateyama-Sniezek, K.M. (1990). Cooperative learning: Does it improve the academic achievement
of students with handicaps? Exceptional Children, 56(5), 426-437.
Tingle, J.B., & Good, R. (1990). Effects of cooperative grouping on stoichemetric problem
solving in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Training, 27(5), 671-683.
Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning. How to integrate online & traditional learning. London and
Sterling, VA: Kogan Page.
Troha, F.J. (2002). Bulletproof instructional design: A model for blended learning. USDLA
Journal, 16(5). Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/
MAY02_Issue/article03.html
Troha, F. (2003). Bulletproof blended learning design: Process, principles and tips. Bloomington,
IN: Authorhouse.
Tuckman, B.W. (2002). Evaluating ADAPT: A hybrid instructional model combining web-based
and classroom components. Computers & Education, 39, 261-269. Retrieved April 20,
2008, from http://dennislearningcenter.osu.edu/references/evaluating_ADAPT.htm
Veen, W. (2003). A new force for change: Homo Zappiens. The Learning Citizen, 7, 5-7.
Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and
perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 6,
77-90.
Westen, C., Gandell, T., McAlpine, L., & Finkelstein, A. (1999). Designing instruction for the
context of online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(1), 35-44.
Woods, R.H. (2002). How much communication is enough in online courses? Exploring the
relationship between frequency of instructor-initiated personal email and learners’ percep-
tion of and participation in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4),
377-394.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research. Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Applied Social Research
Methods Series, 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Young, J.R. (2002). “Hybrid” teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online
instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Information Technology, 48(28), A33-34.
Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning:
Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 51-59.