Skip to main content

Designing Blended, Flexible, and Personalized Learning

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education

Abstract

Blended, flexible, and personalized learning models are increasingly used to provide a more student-centered approach to learning. This chapter explores these models, and what current research and theory tells us about how to design these forms of learning. The aim of flexible and personalized learning is to meet the needs of student, with flexible learning focusing on how this can be done, and personalized learning on the outcomes. A common approach to implementing either flexible or personalized learning has been to use blended learning; that is, learning that occurs both online and in-person. There are many different ways in which blended learning can be implemented, with an expectation that this will continue to expand as new technologies become available. This variation in the way blended learning can be operationalized make creating universal design principles difficult. Current approaches to designing blended learning aimed at delivering flexible or personalized learning largely draw on descriptive studies of blended learning, or on theories and lessons drawn from the online and face-to-face fields. It is also common for design principles to have come from the higher education literature, where more research on the use of blended learning exists. In designing for blended learning, both the physical and online environments need considered, as do the context in which teaching and learning is to occur, the desired pedagogical approach, and what technology is available. A critical part of the design process is to ensure that learning drives the use of technology, rather than the reverse. It seems likely that blended learning will continue be used to deliver flexible and personalized learning and more investigation into how blended learning can effectively deliver flexible and personalized learning in primary and secondary schools is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abdelaziz, H. A. (2012). D4S4: A four dimensions instructional strategy for web-based and blended learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(4), 220–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 440–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. Needham: Sloan-C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J., Ellis, S., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2013). Blended learning implementation guide. Retrieved from http://www.digitallearningnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/DLNSmartSeries-BL-paper_2012-02-05a.pdf.

  • Bartle, E. (2015). Personalised learning: An overview. Retrieved from https://itali.uq.edu.au/filething/get/1865/Personalised_learning_overview_Final_16_Mar_15.pdf.

  • Benade, L., & Jackson, M. (2017). Intro to ACCESS special issue: Modern learning environments. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 744–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1317986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béres, I., Magyar, T., & Turcsányi-Szabó, M. (2012). Towards a personalised, learning style based collaborative blended learning model with individual assessment. Informatics in Education, 11(1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2010.518811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh, C., Hargis, J., Kamali, T., & Soto, M. (2013). Substitution to augmentation: Faculty adoption of iPad mobile learning in higher education. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 10(4), 270–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra Handa, M. (2009). Learner-centred differentiation model: A new framework. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2013). Is K-12 blended learning disruptive? An introduction of the theory of hybrids. San Mateo: Christensen Institute. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Is-K-12-blended-learning-disruptive.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M. (1998). Constructivism: The making of meaning. In The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspectives in the research process (pp. 42–65). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Building a system of powerful teaching and learning. In R. L. Wehling (Ed.), Building a 21st century U.S. education system (pp. 65–74). Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, N., Eickelmann, B., & Zaka, P. (2013). Restructuring of educational systems in the digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 438–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delialioglu, O. (2012). Student engagement in blended learning environments with lecture-based and problem-based instructional approaches. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 310–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers & Education, 51(1), 474–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donert, K., & Kotsanis, Y. (2015). Education on the cloud 2015: State of the art case studies. Retrieved from esie.org/media/Education-on-the-cloud-2015_state-of-the-art_Case-studies.pdf.

  • Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17(0), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futch, L., deNoyelles, A., Howard, W., & Thompson, K. (2016). “Comfort” as a critical success factor in blended learning courses. Online Learning, 20(3), 140–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbic, P. (2011). Teaching using a blended approach – What does the literature tell us? Educational Media International, 48(3), 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunn, T. M., & Hollingsworth, M. (2013). The implementation and assessment of a shared 21st century learning vision: A district-based approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(3), 201–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining cognition during student-centred, web-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(6), 767–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423­009­9117­x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, D. (2006). Personalising learning 6: The final gateway: School design and organisation. London: Specialist Schools Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hipkins, R. (2004). Changing school subjects for changing times. In Paper presented at the PPTA conference: Charting the future, the way forward for secondary education, Wellington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. San Mateo: Christensen Institute. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/the-rise-of-k-12-blended-learning/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins S., Williams M., Moyer J., George M., & Foster, E. (2016). The shifting paradigm of teaching: Personalised learning according to teachers. Retrieved from http://www.knowledgeworks.org/sites/default/files/u1/teacher-conditions.pdf.

  • Keengwe, J., & Kang, J.-J. (2012). Blended learning in teacher preparation programs: A literature review. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 8(2), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, K.-W., Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student technology experiences in formal and informal learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 414–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma’arop, A. H., & Embi, M. A. (2016). Implementation of blended learning in higher learning institutions: A review of the literature. International Education Studies, 9(3), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2013). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Virtual University. (2013). Online education: A consumer awareness report. Lansing: Michigan Virtual University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miliband, D. (2004). Personalised learning: Building a new relationship with schools. London: DfES.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, T. (2000). Built pedagogies & technology practices: Designing for participatory learning. In T. Cherkasky, J. Greenbaum, P. Mambrey, & J. K. Pors (Eds.), Proceedings of the participatory design conference. Palo Alto: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R., Snow, E., Mislevy, J., Gallagher, L., Krumm, A., & Wei, X. (2014). Blended learning report. Austin: Michael & Susan Dell Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.msdf.org/whitepapers/blended-learning-report/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyland, E. (2011). Integrating online learning in NSW secondary schools: Three schools’ perspectives on ICT adoption. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 152–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K. M., & Stallings, D. T. (2014). Preparing teachers for emerging blended learning environments. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 57–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centred learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, S. J. (2003). Inclusive education: Achieving education for all by including those with disabilities and special education needs. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/614161468325299263/Inclusive-education-achieving-education-for-all-by-including-those-with-disabilities-and-special-education-needs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, M. A. (2014). Personalised learning and the reform of social policy. In M. E. Mincu (Ed.), Personalisation of education in contexts: Policy critique and theories of personal improvement (pp. 89–106). Boston: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, A., Rabbitt, B., & Kennedy, K. (2014). iNACOL blended learning teacher competency framework. Vienna: iNACOL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, A., Watson, J., Staley, P., Patrick, S., Horn, M. B., Fetzer, L., Hibbart, L., Oglesby, J., & Verma, S. (2015). Blending learning: The evolution of online and face-to-face education from 2008–2015. Vienna: iNACOL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puentedura, R. (2009). Transformation, technology, and education. Williamstown: Hippasus. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonmaker R. G. (2014). A blended learning approach to reading circles for English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.hawaii.edu/sls/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/1-Schoonmaker.pdf.

  • Sebba, J., Brown, N., Steward, S., Galton, M., James, M., with Celanton, N., & Boddy, P. (2007). An investigation of personalised learning approaches used by schools. London: DfES.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shand, K. & Glassett Farrelly, S. (2018). The art of blending: Benefits and challenges of a blended course for preservice teachers. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1). Available at https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2018_15_1/shand_farrelly.

  • Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Boston: Innosight Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/classifying-k-12-blended-learning-2/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Edmonton: AU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worthen, M., & Patrick, S. (2015). The iNACOL state policy frameworks: 5 critical issues to transform K-12 education. Vienna: iNACOL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaka, P. (2014). A case study of blended teaching and learning in a New Zealand secondary school, using an ecological framework. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 17(1), 24–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keryn Pratt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Pratt, K., Kovatcheva, E.P. (2018). Designing Blended, Flexible, and Personalized Learning. In: Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Lai, KW. (eds) Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education . Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_49

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics