• Christopher N. AllanEmail author
  • David Green


Griffith Sciences, inspired by strategic university, national and international change developed a framework called the Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model to support innovative initiatives utilising technology and to build better practice in blended learning through the use of learning designs and blended learning principles in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) higher education. The blended learning model was formulated as a result of an implementation of new technology, to increase buy-in and sustain change in blended learning practice by nurturing the grass-roots initiatives of its academic and professional staff. This chapter introduces the Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model, how it is being used to implement and document blended learning principles and design in STEM education, the systematic training and support process developed, and the strategies used to promote the scholarly practice in learning and teaching.


Blended learning Design-based research Learning design STEM Technology implementation Higher education Professional learning 


  1. Allan, C. N., Campbell, C., & Green, D. (2018). Nurturing the budding ideas of STEM academics in a University-wide implementation of PebblePad. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information, Communication Technologies in Education (pp. 39–48). Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, C. N., & Green, D. M. (2018). Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from
  3. Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM Higher Education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220–252. Scholar
  4. Bradforth, S. E., Miller, E. R., Dichtel, W. R., Leibovich, A. K., Feig, A. L., Martin, J. D., … Smith, T. L. (2015). Improving undergraduate science education. Nature, 523, 282–284. Scholar
  5. Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 1–10. Scholar
  6. Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and… tensions with professional identity? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346. Scholar
  7. Conole, G. (2010). Learning design—Making practice explicit. Paper presented at the ConnectEd 2nd International Conference on Design Education. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from
  8. Conole, G., & Wills, S. (2013). Representing learning designs—Making design explicit and shareable. Educational Media International, 50(1), 24–38. Scholar
  9. Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. The National Academies National Research Council Board of Science Education, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
  10. Froyd, J. E., Henderson, C., Cole, R. S., Friedrichsen, D., Khatri, R., & Stanford, C. (2017). From dissemination to propagation: A new paradigm for education developers. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(4), 35. Scholar
  11. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. Scholar
  12. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  13. Graham, C. R. (2012). Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., … Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522. Scholar
  16. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984. Scholar
  17. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Online learning design for dummies: Professional development strategies for beginning online designers. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1500–1505). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  18. Jones, N. (2006). E-college Wales, a case study of blended learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 182–194). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Jorre de St Jorre, T., Johnson, L., & O’Dea, G. (2017). Me in a Minute: A simple strategy for developing and showcasing personal employability. In H. Partridge, K. Davis, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Me, Us, IT! Proceedings ASCILITE2017: 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education (pp. 117–120).Google Scholar
  20. Khatri, R., Henderson, C., Cole, R., Froyd, J. E., Friedrichsen, D., & Stanford, C. (2016). Designing for sustained adoption: A model of developing educational innovations for successful propagation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1).
  21. Landrum, R. E., Viskupic, K., Shadle, S. E., & Bullock, D. (2017). Assessing the STEM landscape: The current instructional climate survey and the evidence-based instructional practices adoption scale. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–10. Scholar
  22. McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22. Scholar
  23. Overton, T., & Johnson, L. (2016). Evidence based practice in learning and teaching for STEM disciplines. Melbourne: Australian Council of Deans of Science.Google Scholar
  24. Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748–762. Scholar
  25. Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R. G., & Sandberg, D. S. (2016). A qualitative analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 17–27. Scholar
  26. Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. Scholar
  27. Reynolds, T., & Greiner, C. (2006). Integrated field experiences in online teacher education. In The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 209–220). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Spring, K. J., Graham, C. R., & Hadlock, C. A. (2016). The current landscape of international blended learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(1), 84–102. Scholar
  29. Torrisi-Steele, G. (2011). This thing called blended learning—A definition and planning approach. Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher Education, 34, 360–371.Google Scholar
  30. Torrisi-Steele, G., & Drew, S. (2013). The literature landscape of blended learning in higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(4), 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of the PVC (Griffith Sciences)Griffith UniversitySouthportAustralia

Personalised recommendations