Exploring+Blended+Environments

This page will contain literature that pertains to blended learning environments.

**Some Blended Learning Literature from my E-Library**

Beqiri, M. S., Chase, N. M., & Bischka, A. (2010). Online course delivery: An empirical investigation of factors affecting student satisfaction. //Journal of Education for Business, 85//, 95–100. [|Bishka_Attitudes_Blended_Delivery.pdf]

Chen, C. (2007). Cultural diversity in instructional design for technology-based education. //British Journal of Educational Technology,38// (2),1113-1116. [|Cultural_Diversity_Ed_Technology.pdf]

Cooner, T. S. (2010). Creating opportunities for students in large cohorts to reflect in and on practice: Lessons learnt from a formative evaluation of students’ experiences of a technology-enhanced blended learning design. //British Journal of Educational Technology,41// (2), 271-286. [|Cooner_Blended_Design.pdf]

Crossouard, B. (2008). Developing alternative models of doctoral supervision with online formative assessment. //Studies in Continuing Education, 30// (1), 51-67. [|Crossouard_Alternative_Doctoral_Supervision.pdf]

Davis, H. C. & Fill, K. (2007). Embedding blended learning in a university's teaching culture: Experiences and reflections. //British Journal of Educational Technology, 38// (5), 817-828. [|Blended_Learning_Uni_Teaching_Culture.pdf]

deBeer, M. & Mason, R. B. (2009). Using a blended approach to facilitate postgraduate supervision. //Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46// (2), 213–226. [|deBeer_Mason_Postgrad_Blended_Supervision.pdf]

de Freitas, Rebolledo-Mendez, S. G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G. & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41 (1),69–85. [|Learning_Immersive_Experiences.pdf]

Delfino, M. & Persico, D. (2007). Online or face-to-face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training. //Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23//, 351–365. [|Delfino_Persico_blended_techniques_teacher_training.pdf]

Holley, D. & Dobson, C. (2008). Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning environment: the use of contemporary learning spaces. Learning, Media and Technology, 33, (2), 139–150. [|Holley_Dobson_Encouraging_Engagement_Blended.pdf]

Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education, 29 (2), 175–185. [|Keller_First_Principles_e3_Learning.pdf]

Lee, J. (2010). Design of blended training for transfer into the workplace. //British Journal of Educational Technology, 41// (2),181–198. [|Lee_2010_Blended_Training.pdf]

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and Instructional Factors Influencing Learning Outcomes within a Blended Learning Environment. //Educational Technology & Society, 12// (4), 282–293. [|Lim_Morris_Factors_Influencing_Outcomes_Blended.pdf]

Normand, C., Littlejohn, A. & Falconer, I. (2008). A model for effective implementation of flexible programme delivery. //Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45// (1), 25–36. [|Normand_Model_Flexible_Programme_Delivery.pdf]

Oh, E., & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended instruction? //Educational Technology & Society, 12// (3), 327– 342. [|Oh_Park_Unis_Blended_Instruction.pdf]

Orton-Johnson, K. (2009). ‘I’ve stuck to the path I’m afraid’: exploring student non-use of blended learning. //British Journal of Educational Technology, 40// (5), 837–847. [|Orton-Johnson_Nonuse_Blended.pdf]

White, S. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning and institutional change—some organisational perspectives on campus-wide e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (5), 840–850. [|Oraganizational_perspectives_eLearning.pdf]


 * Abdous, M. (2010) A predictive study of learner satisfaction and outcomes in face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and live video-streaming learning environments. //Internet and Higher Education (13),// 248-257.**

Distance education courses have been scrutinized for not being as effective as face-to-face courses. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between self-perceived learning-to-teacher interaction and learning satisfaction and outcomes through various teaching modes. The same course was taught and delivered three different ways: face-to-face, satellite, and live video-streaming. This study concluded that delivery mode was not a predictor for self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction, however self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction course be a predictor for student satisfaction. Also learn-to-teacher interaction is a strong predictor of student learning outcomes, being the final grade. Understanding the impact the learner-to-teacher interaction can have on a student’s satisfaction of a course can help universities create that interaction in every mode they offer courses.


 * Goldman, E., Plack, M. , Roche, C. , Smith, J. , andTurley, C. (2009). ” Learning in a chaotic environment“. //Journal of Workplace Learning// 21(7):555-74. . **

This article focuses on learning in a chaotic environment, and the author interviews12 volunteer residents, so the results of learning in chaotic learning environments divide into four kinds which are participation in the emergency departments, focused moments, repetitive cycles, intense experiences.


 * Lee, J-W. (2010). Online support services quality, online learning acceptance, and student satisfaction. //Internet and Higher Education, 13,// 277-283.**

This study compared students in from one university in Korea and one in the US. Students who were the ages of 23-29 were selected for more in-depth analysis. The premise of this study was to determine if there was any correlation between the perceptions of support services quality, ease of use and the usefulness of online learning system; to student satisfaction and the acceptance to online learning. Students from both countries felt that online education would be beneficial and the quality of support services is a predictor of the acceptance and satisfaction of the students. Students’ perception of the quality of student support was a good indicator of the student’s acceptance of online learning as well sa student satisfaction. The author of this article does suggest that future research must look further into cultural values as a possible source of variation in online learning acceptance and satisfaction.


 * Graham, C., and Dziuban, C. (2008). Blended Learning Environments. In Spectpr, J. M. & Merrill, M. D. (Eds.). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, (pp. 269-276). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. **

According to “Blended Learning Environments” by Graham and Dziuban, this study focuses on blended learning environments in a higher education, so the authors use the Sloan Consortium’s five pillars. First, in learning effectiveness, they discuss three points which are transformational potential, completion rates and academic performance, and assessment. Transformational potential combine both face-to-face and technology-mediated instruction to produce a more active learning environment. In completion rates and academic performance, the authors rest to previous studies to measure grades and withdrawal rates that are highly sensitive to factors as an example. Assessment should be become interpretive, contextual, and authentic. Then, they discuss access and cost effectiveness as important part to students in blended learning. After that they explain student and faculty satisfaction and give some researches to show how they are important to know blended learning. Finally, organizational considerations impact on blended learning; for example, it helps to develop the blended learning, so it should be built on theories that address instructional models as an example.

**Mohanna, K., Waters, M. , and Deighan, M. (2008). “ Designing effective blended learning environments for training trainers in primary care”. //Education for Primary Care// 19: 597–604.**

According to “ Designing effective blended learning environments for training trainers in primary care” by Mohanna, Waters, and Deighan, they focus on the theory of cognitive load. Also, through this theory, the authors make Blended learning environments to the mixing of teaching and learning media to improve the learning experience and the efficiency of course provision, usually with a combination of face-to-face and web based learning. The authors create course to training trainers to help trainers to improve their skills.


 * So, H.-J., & Bonk, C.J. (2010). Examining the Roles of Blended Learning Approaches in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Environments: A Delphi Study. //Educational Technology & Society, 13// (3), 189-200.**

Blended learning has been described many different ways but basically blended learning is face-to-face instruction combined with technology but not being completely one or the other. So and Bonk decided to utilize the Delphi method to obtain opinions from experts around the world in a timely manner. These experts agreed that design aspects are an important part of implementing a blended learning approach. This panel also agreed deciding when to use human interaction or technology-mediated interaction is a very complex decision. The experts involved in this study also believe that there will be no classification of online and off-line learning but all will be blended learning to some extent.


 * Rideout, G. (2006)." [|Educational beliefs and the learning environment] ". // Academic Exchange Quarterly. // Retrieved from __http://findarticles.com/p/articles__ **
 * __ / ____ mi_hb3325/is_2_10/ai_n29284270/ __ **

Through this article, the author focuses on the relationship between the classroom learning environment and aspects of students' belief systems, and she connects her searches with previousstudiesto show how enhancing the learning environment is very important. That also is very significant to teachers because when they understand the relationship between conceptual frameworks for beliefs and for the learning environment, they are fundamental to improve the educational process.


 * Alshawi, M., Goulding, J. , and Faraj, I. (2006). “ Knowledge-based learning environments for construction”. Education in the Built Environment, Vol.1, Issue 1. **

According to “ Knowledge-based Learning Environments for Construction” by Alshawi, Goulding, and Faraj, they focus on instructional design theories instructional design models, and recent pedagogical advances, and they connect that with online learning. Also, they describe the relationship between education and technology in the context of the design and development of personalised e-learning environments. To comprehend the relationship between technology and pedagogy, there are five step which are evaluation of the knowledge domain, design and development of the KBLE (Knowledge Based Learning Environment), implementation of the KBLE, evaluation and feedback, and prototyping the KBLE.


 * Tucker, R. (2008). “ Learning style drift: correlation between built environment students’ learning styles and the learning styles of their teachers”. Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 3, Issue 1.**

In “ Learning Style Drift: Correlation between Built Environment Students’ Learning Styles and the Learning Styles of their Teachers” by Tucker, this research focused on the results of a cross-curriculum learning style survey. It made in an Australian School of Architecture and Building, and it included 152 undergraduates and 26 academic teaching staff. Then, the author compared the different learning styles of students from two year groups first year and third year which were three undergraduate courses Bachelor of Arts (Architecture), Bachelor of Construction Management (CM), and a double degree, Bachelor of Architecture Construction Management. This study found that an analysis of variance results was qualified by a chi square analysis examining the relationship between student year level and the Southern and Northern dimensions of the Kolb Learning Cycle. Although not significant at the .05 alpha level, the analysis revealed there to be a move towards a significant trend in the data χ2(1, N = 151) 3.109, p>.07 towards Southerner learning in third year.


 * Peel, d. (2010). " Making an impact in the built environment?". Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 5, Issue 1.**

Through this study, the author suggests that impact assessments should be used to design and implement policies, plans, projects, and programmes. Also, it predicts potential future results of proposed action to show costs, benefits, and effects of interventions in operation. Impact assessments can be taken on many things such as a figure of points from the developmental, option generation, consultation, implementation or review stages, and serve to legitimise the rationale for intervention. For example, In the UK, recent conversations are appearing in relation to impact across the higher education part; therefore, there are some Assumptions to include institutional research or support research-based learning in curricula as part of a porous academic environment potentially run the risk of rendering students passive by-standers as research institutes and units of assessment focus on excelling with respect to their external impacts.


 * Graham, C., and Dziuban, C. (2008). Flexible Learning and the Architecture of Learning Places. In Spectpr, Goodyear, p.(Eds.). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, (pp. 251-257). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.**

According to “ Flexible Learning and the Architecture of Learning Places” by Goodyear, the author explains flexible learning and think about the relations between learning and place. After that, the author focuses on the difference between worker and stronger interpretations. First, he defines flexible learning and describes how flexible use of time and space; for example, flexibility on this scale allows the learner detailed control over the scheduling and pace of their learning activity. Through flexibility over goals, methods, and assessment, the author gives some examples such as what and how learners study. About worker and stronger interpretations, the worker version asserts that learning is situated in physical and social contexts. The stronger interpretations is that learning is a byproduct of participation in a social practice. Then, the ergonomics of learning environments should be applied to understand the actuality of learners’ actual work. Finally, he gives examples about being a learner, putting learning in ITS place, and some further research.

This study examines the influences of learner demographic characteristics, learning styles, instructional design, and learning motivations of students in blended learning environments. An undergraduate course comprised of freshmen thru seniors to teach curriculum content in learner and program evaluation was used in this study. This course utilized: 1) self-paced online modules, 2) instructor-led in-depth content, 3) group collaboration sessions, and 4) weekly and semester-based assessment of student’s learning progress. Half of the course was online and the other half was face-to-face sessions. The study revealed gender was not a variable that influenced learner outcomes, however, age did. Students who were 20 years or older had significantly higher mean scored in perceived learning, learning application and learning involvement, compared to younger students. Students that had distance learning experience indicated the quality of learning and learning motivation was lower than those who didn’t have any distance learning experience. Students who preferred an online delivery mode had a significantly higher mean score for perceived learning, learning application, learning activity, learning motivation and learning involvement, than those who did not prefer an online delivery mode. Course relevancy was the only motivation type that showed any relationship with actual learning. Students’ average study time showed a strong relationship to relevancy, interest, and affect. This study finds that individual learning differences are important to the instructional decision for blended instruction, which is learner-oriented. The second finding is that the applicability of the learning material and how it is utilized on the blended learning environment is important. The way the course is designed can influence the outcomes of students.
 * Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and Instructional Factors Influencing Learning Outcomes within a Blended Learning Environment. //Educational Technology & Society, 12// (14), 282-293.**

** Scordias, M., Jaradat, S. & Hoagland, C. (2009). Wikis, Constructivist Learning Environment for the Information Age. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 2670-2675). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from []. **  The author mansions some important parts about learning environments such as the importance of knowledge and learning and through that he explains how we can struggle to keep up with the world of change. Another example is learning as a process that must be fostered in each facet of a business or organization. From individual to collaborative learning, in individual, the environments can have a profound effect on the learning process; but we can see collaboration in schools and educational institutions. There are two definitions of self-directed learning which are low self-directed and high self-directed. The author creates two attributes of collaboration and self- direction can be combined into a two- dimensional model to understand kinds of learning environments. Finally, the author gives some examples about great environments to make study more confortable. 