Skip to main content

Future Research Directions for Blended Learning Research: A Programmatic Construct

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Using Blended Learning

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Education ((BRIEFSEDUCAT))

  • 2471 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we develop a programmatic research construct for blended learning based on an earlier framework proposed by Meyen et al. (J Special Educ Technol, 17(3):37–46, 2002). The use of this programmatic research construct will not only inform researchers of future possible research related to studying learner outcomes, but also expand the scope of blended learning research to other dimensions that are hitherto not yet investigated. This research construct consists of three categories of variables—independent variables, in situ variables, and dependent variables. Independent variables include variables such as the level or type of interaction, pedagogical approach, media attributes, and human computer interface design elements. In situ variables may be considered variables that are situated in the existing blended learning environment. They may include variables such as learner attributes, instructor attributes, learning environments, nature of content, and technology infrastructure. Dependent variables are the various outcomes that a researcher may measure in an experiment. They include variables such as learner outcomes, policy implications, and economic implications. In this final chapter, we will describe each of these variables and then propose several possible research questions to illustrate how the programmatic research construct for blended learning could be utilized in practice.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

  • Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azer, S. A. (2005). The qualities of a good teacher: How can they be acquired and sustained. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98, 67–69.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, J., Galletta, D., Kim, J., Te’eni, D., Wildemuth, B., & Zhang, P. (2004). The role of human–computer interaction in management information systems curicula: A call to action. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 357–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Community Review (2012–2013). Review of technology and learning environments: Wilmette District 39. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://www.wilmette39.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=4076&Itemid=1098

  • Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. F. (1997). The motivation to think in working and learning. In E. Jones (Ed.), Preparing competent college graduates: Setting new and higher expectations for student learning (pp. 67–79). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2011). Student facilitators’ habits of mind and their influences on higher-level knowledge construction occurrences in online discussions: A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(3), 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (Eds.). (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyen, E. L., Aust, R., Gauch, J. M., Hinton, H. S., Isaacson, R. E., Smith, S. J., et al. (2002). e-Learning: A programmatic research construct for the future. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(3), 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19(3), 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omer, A. H. (2011). Nature of content—A deciding factor for training design. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://blog.commlabindia.com/elearning/nature-of-content

  • Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American k-12 education: The research initiatives of the AlfredP. Sloan Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT and our customers in higher education. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 155–168). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staker, H., Chan, E., Clayton, M., Hernandez, A., Horn, M. B., & Mackey, K. (2011). The rise of K–12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. Innosight Institute report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, L., & Young, J. (2010). Implementing blended learning: Policy implications for universities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(4). Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter134/wallace_young134.html

  • Zhang, P., Carey, J., Te’eni, D., & Tremeaine, M. (2005). Integrating human–computer Interaction development into the systems development life cycle: A methodology. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 512–543.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khe Foon Hew .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S. (2014). Future Research Directions for Blended Learning Research: A Programmatic Construct. In: Using Blended Learning. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-089-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics