Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Blended Learning Needs Blended Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Critical Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and Leadership

Abstract

There are many evaluation frameworks for blended teaching; however, there are few suitable frameworks for Blended Learning (BL). This chapter presents an evaluation framework that was designed to span school and university BL, including Initial Teacher Eduction (ITE). An appropriate evaluation framework must show how effective each BL design and implementation is, at the level of a term or semester of study, and at the larger scale, such as across primary, middle, or secondary school, or programmes of study such as an ITE bachelor or master’s. This chapter first identifies eight features from the literature that are necessary for a BL evaluation framework, and shows that existing models do not satisfy these requirements. Next, the chapter introduces the Blended and Engaged Learning Zones (BELZ), designed specifically for BL across schooling and university studies, and that satisfies these eight features. An example follows of a version of BELZ used to evaluate BL in the years prior to a substantial three-term long inquiry task. BELZ addresses the imbalance in the literature, as well as the needs in teaching practice, for an evaluation framework for BL across schooling and university study.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ain, C. T., Sabir, F., & Willison, J. (2019). Research skills that men and women developed at university and then used in workplaces. Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2346–2358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), n1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy. Australian Journal of Education, 33(2), 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain (pp. 20–24). New York: McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowyer, J., & Chambers, L. (2017). Evaluating blended learning: Bringing the elements together. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication, 23, 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundy, A. (2004). Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework: Principles, standards and practice (2nd ed.). http://www.caul.edu.au/info-literacy/InfoLiteracyFramework.pdf.

  • Cappi, V., Artioli, G., Erika, N., Ferrari, S., Guarnieri, M. C., Martucci, G., et al. (2019). The use of blended learning to improve health professionals’ communication skills: A literature review. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis, 90(Suppl 4), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Černá, M. (2017). Deployment of cognitive and affective determinants in blended learning-case study. International Conference on Blended Learning (pp. 464–474). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chmiel, A. S., Shaha, M., & Schneider, D. K. (2017). Introduction of blended learning in a master program: Developing an integrative mixed method evaluation framework. Nurse Education Today, 48, 172–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland-Innes, M., & Wilton, D. (2018). Guide to blended learning. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/3095.

  • Coates, H. (2016). Assessing student learning outcomes internationally: Insights and frontiers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(5), 662–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn, 20, 51–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1904). Significance of the school of education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(7), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derntl, M., & Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2004, March). Patterns for blended, person-centered learning: Strategy, concepts, experiences, and evaluation. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 916–923). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francom, G., & Moon, A. (2018). Enhancing educational technology confidence among teacher candidates. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 17, 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasse, C. (2017). Technology literacy for teachers. Oxford Review Education, 43(3), 365–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, C., & van der Merwe, P. (2015). Teaching practice in the 21st century: Emerging trends, challenges and opportunities. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3, 190–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiili, K., & Ketamo, H. (2017). Evaluating cognitive and affective outcomes of a digital game-based math test. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(2), 255–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. (1955). Personal construct psychology. New York: Norton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II. Affective domain. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, H. C., Hays, M. J., Core, M. G., Auerbach, D. (2013). Learning intercultural communication skills with virtual humans: Feedback and fidelity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1026–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2005). E-learning in higher education. In P. Ashwin (Ed.) Changing higher education (pp. 87–100). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & McGill, L. (2012). Learning at the digital frontier: A review of digital literacies in theory and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 28(6), 547–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, C., & Pandey, S. (2019). An assessment of digital capability training programs among higher education institutions in India. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–23. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2216869072?accountid=8203

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record., 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Missingham, D., Shah, S., Sabir, F., & Willison, J. (2018). Student engineers optimising problem solving and research skills. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 15(4), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en.

  • Paiva, J., Morais, C., Costa, L., & Pinheiro, A. (2016). The shift from “e-learning” to “learning”: Invisible technology and the dropping of the “e”. BJET, 47(2), 226–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pombo, L., & Moreira, A. (2012). Evaluation framework for blended learning courses: A puzzle piece for the evaluation process. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(3), 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puentedura, R. R. (2013). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html.

  • Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., Bulfin, S., & Johnson, N. F. (2017). Left to their own devices: The everyday realities of ‘one-to-one’ classrooms. Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 289–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–36). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/.

  • Smythe, M. (2012). Toward a framework for evaluating blended learning. Future challenges, sustainable futures. Proceedings of Ascilite Conference (pp. 854–858). 25–28 November 2012, Wellington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, H., Kim, J., & Park, N. (2019). I know my professor: Teacher self-disclosure in online education and a mediating role of social presence. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(6), 448–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1455126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, J., & Graham, C. R. (2020). Essentials for blended learning: A standards-based guide. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stice, J. E. (1987). Using Kolb’s learning cycle to improve student learning. Engineering Education, 77(5), 291–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J. A. (2017). The impact of technology exposure on student perceptions of a 1:1 program. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2281–2309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Paas, F. (2017). Should self-regulated learning be integrated with cognitive load theory? A commentary. Learning and Instruction, 51, 85–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varthis, S., & Anderson, O. R. (2018). Students’ perceptions of a blended learning experience in dental education. European Journal of Dental Education, 22(1), e35–e41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venning, J., & Buisman-Pijlman, F. (2013). Integrating assessment matrices in feedback loops to promote research skill development in postgraduate research projects. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 567–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z., Anderson, T., & Chen, L. (2018). How learners participate in connectivist learning: An analysis of the interaction traces from a cMOOC. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Willison, J. W. (2012). When academics integrate research skill development in the curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 905–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willison, J. W. (2020). The models of engaged learning and teaching. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willison, J. W., & O’Regan, K. (2005). 2020 vision: An information literacy continuum for students primary to postgraduation. Research and Development in Higher Education: Proceedings of the Higher Education Research and Development Conference. Sydney, 3–6 July 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(4), 393–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willison, J., Bennet, R., Daughtry, J., & Suh, A. (2019). The models of engaged learning and teaching (MELT) in STEM and special education. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Brisbane, 1–5 December 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willison, J., Conlon, A., Gianni, B., & Pierce, D. (2018). Integrating science, technology, engineering and maths through thinking skills in common. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, 2–6 December 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willison, J., Sabir, F., & Thomas, J. (2017). Shifting dimensions of autonomy in students’ research and employment. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 430–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmore, M., & Willison, J. (2016). Graduates’ attitudes to research skill development in undergraduate media education. Asia-Pacific Media Educator, 26(1), 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., & Zhu, C. (2017). Review on blended learning: Identifying the key themes and categories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(9), 673–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, M., & Chua, B. L. (2016). Using blended learning design to enhance learning experience in teacher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 15(1), 121–140.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Associate Professor Mathew White for his critical review of the book chapter. Thanks are also due to Associate Professor Mathew White and Professor Faye McCallum for their technical editing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    John Willison

Authors
  1. John Willison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Willison .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Mathew A. White

  2. University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Faye McCallum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Willison, J. (2020). Blended Learning Needs Blended Evaluation. In: White, M.A., McCallum, F. (eds) Critical Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and Leadership. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6667-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6667-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-6666-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-6667-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation