The exploratory study reports the benefits, limitations and challenges, and blend mix of blended learning from the perspectives of students and lecturers for one of the part-time Australian MBAs currently conducted based on traditional classroom teaching at a private education institution in Singapore. The data collected through semi-structured interviews with 10 existing MBA students and 10 lecturers teaching this MBA programme. In line with prior studies, while students recognise blended learning provides them with greater flexibility and improving their learning outcome and performance, they noted that discipline and commitment to online learning, reduced interaction, and resistance to changes were the three major weaknesses and challenges faced. Lecturers also felt that though blended learning increased flexibility through designing the course curriculum to suit students with diverse learning style and pace, they noted that the resistance in learning new technology and heavy work load remain as two key challenges in introducing blended learning. Majority of the students preferred online learning to the introduced gradually over time. The findings in this study provide useful insights to the university and institution in assessing the readiness of students and lecturers for blended learning, and taking appropriate measures for successful implementation of blended learning. Delivered at Innovate and Educate: Teaching and Learning Conference by Blackboard. 24 -27 August 2015 in Adelaide, Australia.

1. Is blended learning well blended? A comparative
study of students’ and educators’ perspectives on
introducing blended learning in MBA programme
James Kwan
National University of Singapore

2. Presentation Outline
• Background of Study
• Prior Literature
• Research Methodology
• Findings and Discussion
• Implication of Findings
• Conclusion
2

3. Background of Study
• Rapid growth in blended learning (BL) courses provided by
various higher learning institutions globally (Twigg, 2003b;
Matheos, 2011; Oh & Park, 2009; Tham & Tham, 2013)
• However, BL in the private education sector in Singapore is not
popular, which could be due to resource constraints, lack of
faculty and management support
3

4. Background of Study
• Prior studies focus mainly on educators’ or/and students’
perspectives on introducing BL at undergraduate level (e.g. El-
Mowafy, Kuhn, & Snow, 2013; Jones & Chen, 2013; Stuart, 2013)
and postgraduate level (e.g. Grandzol, 2004; Kistow, 2011;
Stacey & Gerbic, 2007; Waha & Davis, 2014)
• Lacking in the current literature are educators’ and students’
perspectives on introducing BL in MBA programme
administered by the private education institutions (PEIs)
4

5. Background of Study
• This exploratory study is to evaluate the views from both
students and educators on the introduction of BL for one of the
Australian’s MBA programmes administered by one of the
largest PEIs in Singapore, Kaplan Higher Education (KHE)
• Research questions:
– What are the students’ and educators’ perceptions of the benefits,
limitations and challenges of introducing BL in an MBA programme?
– What are the students’ and educators’ perceptions of blend mix in a BL
MBA programme?
5

6. Prior Literature
• BL is defined as the combination of traditional face-to-face and
online learning environment, where students and teachers
interact synchronously with and without the use of technology
(Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Tselios, Daskalakis, &
Papadopoulou, 2011; Williams, 2002)
• BL involves an extensive course redesign with the use of
technology to enhance learning and teaching in a combination
of physical and virtual environment (Bleed, 2001;Vaughan,
2007)
6

7. Prior Literature
• Benefits of BL:
– more flexibility in learning, anytime, anywhere (Garham & Kaleta, 2002;
Kistow, 2011; Papp, 2000; Spender, 2001; Trasler, 2002; Vaughan, 2007)
– reduce commuting time to school (Bourne & Seaman, 2005; Garham &
Kaleta, 2002; Vaughan, 2007)
– redesigned curriculum enables students to learn more and thus
improved their learning outcome (Akyol & Garrison, 2011; Aspden &
Helm, 2004; Lin, 2008, 2009; Twigg, 2003a)
– improve students’ analytical skills, achieving better grades and
increased motivation to learn (Chen & Jones, 2007; Collopy & Arnold,
2009)
7

8. Prior Literature
• Benefits of BL:
– educators to employ a wide range of instructional tools in redesigning the
course to promote more effective teaching and active learning (Dodge 2001;
King, 2001; Laumakis, Graham, & Dziuban, 2009)
– effectiveness of BL is positively associated with students’ age, prior online
learning experience, clarity of online materials, and students’ comfort with
the LMS (Harriman, 2004; Kistow, 2011)
– students who are highly-disciplined, self-motivated and enjoy active
participation in online discussion perform better in BL courses (Owston,
York, & Murtha, 2013; Smyth, Houghton, Cooney, & Casey, 2012)
– other studies found no significant difference in performance between
traditional teaching and BL (Gagne & Shepherd, 2001; Grandzol, 2004)
8

9. Prior Literature
• Limitations and challenges of BL:
– time spend on ‘learning how to learn’, including using sophisticated
online educational tools (Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta, 2002; Vaughan,
2007)
– students feel isolated and stressful due to confusion, anxiety, and
frustration over the ambiguous web instructions and unclear feedback
received from the course website (Hara & Kling, 2001; Serwatka, 1999;
Volery & Lord, 2000)
– students may not be comfortable to face the computer at home without
the ‘human touch’ (Edginton & Holbrook, 2010; Heinze & Proctor, 2004;
Maddux, 2004; Salmon, 2002)
9

10. Prior Literature
• Limitations and challenges of BL:
– reluctance among teachers to employ online learning as part of their
teaching pedagogy due to the following reasons:
- time consuming in redesigning and administrating the course
(Alebaikan & Troudi, 2010; Crow, Cheek, & Hartman, 2003;
Dziuban & Moskal, 2001)
- fear and resistance in learning new teaching pedagogy with the
use of technology (Aycock et al., 2002; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004; Ooms,
Burke, Linsey, & Heaton-Shrestha, 2008; Shemla & Nachmias,
2007)
- inadequate training and technological support from education
institutions (Beadle & Santy, 2008; Buchanan, Sainter, & Saunders,
2013; Jeffrey, Milne, Suddaby, & Higgins, 2009)
10

11. Prior Literature
• Blend mix
– there is no ‘ideal blend mix’ (Bryant, Kahle, & Schafer, 2005)
– Jones & Chen (2008) report 30 MBA accounting students want at least
three out of the four meetings to be face-to face, i.e. 25%-75% split
– Kistow (2011) reports 52% of the postgraduate business students
prefer a 25%-75% online and face-to-face; 24% of them prefer a 50%-
50% mix, and the remaining 14% opt 75%-25%
– factors to consider in decided the blend mix: course objectives and
learning outcome, students’ profile, availability of online resources and
technological support from university, motivation and capability of
faculty members in delivering (Ostguthorpe & Graham, 2003)
11

12. Methodology
• Graham, Woodfield and Harrison (2013) identify three
implementation stages for adoption of BL:
awareness/exploration; adoption/early implementation, and
mature implementation/growth
• this study focuses on the awareness/exploration stage
• the MBA programme is awarded by one of the leading
Australian universities, which has partnered with KHE to offer
the MBA programme in Singapore via distance learning
12

13. Methodology
• the MBA comprises of 12 modules, with each module currently
conducted entirely on traditional classroom teaching over a 12-week
period of three hours each
• sample comprises of 10 part-time students (S) currently pursuing
the MBA programme and 10 lecturers (L) currently teaching this
programme
• semi-structured interview conducted for each participant, focusing
on benefits, limitations and challenges of BL, and blend mix
13

14. Findings and Discussion – Benefits of BL
• Flexibility in learning (Kistow, 2011; Papp, 2000; Spender, 2001)
– “…as and when we got time we can actually log in to learn and if let’s say in
the middle of the night you can’t sleep you an wake up and log in to watch
the video and contribute your ideas to the forum.” (SM9)
• “Enhances the learning experience””(SF4 and SF6) via increased
quality online student-teacher interaction which enriches their
learning experiences and also “improve their learning outcome”
(SM7)
– Supported by earlier studies (Aspden & Helm, 2004; Chen & Jones, 2007)
14

15. Findings and Discussion – Benefits of BL
• Cost effective and reduce commuting time (Bourne & Seaman,
2005; Twigg, 2003a; Vaughan, 2007)
– “I don’t have to be physically there and this saves me lots of travelling
time and cost of parking my car.” (SM7)
• Lecturers also see flexibility for students as a key advantage of
BL, as the redesigned curriculum suit students with “diverse
learning style and pace” (LF2) and “maximize students’ learning
and promotes continuous improvement” (LM6) in their teaching.
These views are supported by Aycock et al. (2002).
15

16. Findings and Discussion – Limitations and Challenges of BL
• Discipline and commitment to online learning
– “Part-time means no time! I believe many part-time MBA students will not
make the point to listen to the online lectures and participate actively for
any online discussion unless it’s part of the summative assessments.”(SM10)
– structured classroom teaching ‘forces’ them to come to class to learn and
interact with their classmates and lecturer
16

17. Findings and Discussion – Limitations and Challenges of BL
• Reduced interaction (Heinze & Proctor, Maddux, 2004; Salmon,
2002)
– “…reduced opportunity to interact with their peers and lecturer.” (SF5)
– structured classroom teaching ‘forces’ them to come to class to learn and
interact with their classmates and lecturer
– views are contrary to those reported by Akyol and Garrison (2011)
where conclude BL allows students to interact in a highly collaborative
learning environment and promotes higher-order thinking
– Akyol and Garrison (2011) employ both quan and qual methods to
examine existing online and blended MEd students
17

18. Findings and Discussion – Limitations and Challenges of BL
• Resistance to changes (Aycock et al., 2002; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004;
Oblinger, 2003)
– “BL has a strong reliance on technology and technical resources so
definitely it will present barriers to students in terms of accessibility, their
experience and comfort in using it… personally I’m not comfortable with
the use of e-tools.” (SM9)
– “… may result in students falling behind in learning if the use of technology
is not preferred or avoided.” (SM10)
– respondents could be the digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001)
18

19. Findings and Discussion – Limitations and Challenges of BL
• Resistance in learning new technology among lecturers (Eshet-Alkalai,
2004; Ooms, Burke, Linsey, & Heaton-Shrestha, 2008; Shemala &
Nachmias, 2007)
– “If you don’t use Facebook, you don’t know WhatsApp, you don’t have a
smartphone, they [students] will see you as a dinosaur (laugh)…I am aware
that there are many ‘dinosaurs’ around at Kaplan who just don’t see the
benefits of online learning at all.” (LM9)
– “I think online learning will ultimately replace us one day… lectures are
recorded and the school may use publishers’ materials… so we are going to be
redundant in future (sigh).” (LM10). Such response is also consistent with
those reported by Benson, Anderson and Ooms (2001) and Greener (2009).
19

20. Findings and Discussion – Limitations and Challenges of BL
• Time consuming and additional workload (Dziuban & Moskal, 2001; Johnson,
2002)
– “… using BL will be extremely time-consuming in the initial redesign phase.
I have to learn how to use the technology, which is also time-consuming
(frown).” (LM10)
– “BL increases workload of lecturers rather than removing it. For instance,
like online forum, there seems to be an unspoken expectation that lecturers
should reply students’ enquiries almost instantly! (annoyed)” (LF2).
20

21. Findings and Discussion – Blend Mix
• Ranged from one-fifth to two-third of the time (36 hours per module) for
online learning, with several respondents felt that BL is considered new and
the proportion of online learning can gradually increase over time
– “I think it will be 20% to start with because BL is quite a new and
unexplored delivery mode at Kaplan.” (SF1)
– “For a start, I would think we can try one-third of it, which is 12 hours to
test the market – in terms of the acceptability, students’ performance,
effectiveness of learning, productivity. If it is proven to be successful, I do
not have a problem increasing it to half or two-third.” (SF5)
– blend mix is slightly lower than the findings gathered by Kistow (2011),
who reported 52% and 14% of the 106 respondents opted 25% and 75%
respectively for online component21

22. Findings and Discussion – Blend Mix
• Nine out of 10 respondents would not want more than 50% of the programme
to be conducted online, which suggest that respondents would still have
strong preference for traditional classroom teaching over online learning.
– “I feel that face-to-face interaction is still quite important to make the
course work for many students because that’s what we are used to and
that’s what we think what learning should be.” (SF1)
– “I will still prefer classroom teaching if I have the time but if I am travelling
due to the nature of my work then online learning is a backup where I can
wacth the video to revise my lecture.” (SM9)
– findings are consistent with those reported in prior studies (Akkoyunlu &
Soylu, 2006, 2008; Balci & Soran, 2009; Jones & Chen, 2008; Orhan, 2008)
22

23. Findings and Discussion – Blend Mix
• Finding the ‘right blend’ remain as an ongoing challenge as each student has
different learning style and preference (Bryant et al., 2005)
– “The biggest challenge could be finding the right blend to suit most of the
students because different students may prefer different ways of teaching
and their experience and knowledge may be different at different levels.”
(SF4)
23

24. Implication of Findings – Student Readiness
• Kaplan and the university should assess students’ readiness by conducting campus
wide survey for all MBA students. Further actions to prepare students to accepting
BL include:
– conduct information sessions on the benefits of BL when marketing the MBA
programme (Jaggars, 2013; Moore, 2013)
– provide training on the various web tools to new students during orientation
and existing students on a regular basis (Jaggars, 2013; Moore, 2013)
– provide appropriate technical infrastructure and support to address any
technical issues students may face during their course of study (Ackerman,
2008; Jaggars, 2013; Jefferies & Hyde, 2010)
– security issues (personal particulars not accessed by unauthorized users)
24

25. Implication of Findings – Teacher Preparedness
• Kaplan may engage BL specialist and instructional designers to
conduct training to all lecturers involving in teaching this MBA
programme
– relevant training programmes on digital education should be conducted
regularly to ensure lecturers are well-equipped with the latest
technology employed in higher education
25

26. Implication of Findings – Teacher Preparedness
• As part-time students have limited time devoted to studies,
lecturers need to redesign the curriculum:
– promote and improve learner autonomy and motivation on online
learning
– online activities involving teacher-student interaction and come with
sufficient scaffolding (Komarnicki, 2014)
– clear learning outcome and well-structured course materials and
assessments to allow students to assume greater responsibility for their
learning and also to develop sufficient level of self-directed learning
skills, time management skills, and decision making skills (Arbaugh,
Desai, Rau, & Sridhar, 2010; Tabor, 2007)
26

27. Implication of Findings – Teacher Preparedness
• Highly committed and highly responsive to students’ queries during
online learning phase (Jackson, Jones, & Rodriguez, 2010)
– synchronous e-learning for certain online learning sessions, where all
students can logged on at the same time and communicate directly with
each other (Gilbert, 2007; Moore, 2013)
– ongoing encouragement and motivation to students, provide guidance and
feedback on their progress, boosting confidence in their learning and instil
confidence in them
– clear learning outcome and well-structured course materials and
assessments to allow students to assume greater responsibility for their
learning and also to develop sufficient level of self-directed learning skills,
time management skills, and decision making skills (Arbaugh, Desai, Rau, &
Sridhar, 2010; Tabor, 2007)
27

28. Implication of Findings – Teacher Preparedness
• Promote and bring in the positive aspects of BL to students
– introduce BL and the e-tools at the early stage of the programme to
reduce their anxiety, stress and confusion
– encourage students to work in pair
– create a ‘Café’ forum where students can ‘meet’ and chat online and
share their experiences in BL (Marsh, 2012)
– start a new discussion topic relating to the module every week to
encourage students to participate actively in the forum to gain
participation marks
28

29. Implication of Findings – University Keeness
• Determining the fit of BL within the stated goals and priorities
– consider issues relating to student access to technology and flexibility
in learning
– consider whether moving to BL will disadvantage some students over
others (e.g. geographical, learning preferences, familiarity with e-
learning tools and cost)
– may need to conduct a comprehensive survey to all existing MBA
students to gauge their acceptability and challenges face if BL is
introduced
29

30. Implication of Findings – University Keeness
• Approval by department heads, Dean of Business School and
faculty council
– consider the proportion of each module that involves online element,
allocation of assessment weightage to online, faculty workload,
deployment of manpower in designing the curriculum and teaching
pedagogy
30

31. Implication of Findings – University Keeness
• Support for development and delivery of BL between
university and Kaplan
– additional financial budget to invest in equipment, facilities, student
and faculty support and training
– agreement between the university and Kaplan in sharing the cost of
developing the programme
– possibility of having faculty members from the University and Kaplan to
jointly delivering the programme
31

32. Implication of Findings – University Keeness
• Ownership of materials
– copyright for online materials has increasingly becoming vested in
collective agreement between faculty and university (Wallace & Young,
2010)
– faculty members retain copyright ownership if materials are entirely
developed by them, else jointly held by the faculty member and the
university, or remain with the faculty member but with negotiated
institutional use of the materials if they are jointly developed by
curriculum specialists, instructional designers and the faculty member
32

33. Conclusion
• Students recognize BL provides them with greater flexibility and
improving their learning outcome and performance, they note that
discipline and commitment to online learning, reduced interaction, and
resistance to changes are the three major weaknesses and challenges
faced
• Lecturers acknowledge BL increases flexibility through designing the
course curriculum to suit students with diverse learning style and
pace, they note that resistance in learning new technology and heavy
workload are the two key challenges in introducing BL
33

34. Conclusion
• Majority of the students prefer the weightage of the online
learning to be increased gradually over time, with no more
than 50% online
• Findings gathered in this study provide some practical
implications for students (access and flexibility), lecturers
(teaching pedagogy), and the university (resource utilization)
• The readiness and commitment of these three parties are vital
to ensure a seamless transition to a BL environment
34

35. Conclusion
• Future research directions:
– obtaining views from a larger pool of existing part-time students and
lecturers by employing both quantitative and qualitative methods
– conduct similar studies for two other UK MBA programmes offered at
Kaplan, which are taught entirely in classroom but on intensive sessions
held over weekends
– extend the study using focus group interview with management at
Kaplan and the University on the other two stages of adoption
(adoption/early implementation and mature implementation/growth)
proposed in the framework by Graham et al. (2013)
35

36. Conclusion
• As Young (2002) states, “The convergence of classroom and
online education is the single greatest unrecognized trend in
higher education today.” (p. A33)
• One of the most challenging issues is what constitute a ‘right’
blend for BL largely depends on the different types of
discipline, students’ learning preferences and other
commitments, programme level, faculty readiness, adaption,
pedagogical and technological support provided by the
universities
36

37. References
Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M.Y. (2006). A study on students' views about
blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 7(3), 43-56.
Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M.Y. (2008). A study of student's pereceptions in a
blended learning environment based on different learning styles.
Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 183-193.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D.R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online
community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183-190
Alebaikan, R., & Troudi, S. (2010). Blended learning in Saudi universities:
challenges and perspectives. Research in Learning Technology, 18(1), 49-59.
37

38. References
Arbaugh, J., Desai, A., Rau, B., & Sirdhar, B.S. (2010). A review of research on
online and blended learning in management disciplines: 1994-2009.
Organization Management Journal, 7, 39-55.
Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning
environment. Educational Media International, 41(3), 245-252.
Aycock, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Lessons learned from the
hybrid course project. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6), 1-6.
Banci, M., & Soren, H. (2008). Students'opinion on blended learning. Turkish
Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 21-35.
38

39. References
Bourne, K., & Seaman, J. (2005). Sloan-C Special Survey Report: A look at
blended learning.
Chen, C., & Jones, K.T. (2007). Blended learning vs traditional classroom
settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA
Accounting Course. The Journal of Educators Online, 4(1), 1-15.
Collopy, R., & Arnold, J. (2009). To blend or not to blend: Online-only and
blended learning environments. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 85-
101.
Crow, S., Cheek, R.G., & Hartman, S.J. (2003). Anatomy of a train week: A case
study in the distance learning of strategic management. International
Journal of Management, 20(3), 335-341.
39

40. References
Beadle, M., & Santy, J. (2008). The early benefits of a problem based approach to
teaching social inclusion using an online virtual town. Nurse Education in
Practice, 8(3), 190-196.
Bleed, R. (2001, January/February). A hybrid campus for the new
millennium. Educause Review.
Bryant, S., Kahle, J.B., & Schafer, B.A. (2005). Distance education: A review of the
contemporary literature. Issues in Accounting Education, 20(3), 252-272.
Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of
learning technologies: implications for models of technology adoption.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 1-11.
40

41. References
Chen, C., & Jones, K.T. (2007). Blended learning vs traditional classroom
settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA
Accounting Course. The Journal of Educators Online, 4(1), 1-15.
Dodge, B. (2001). FOCUS: Five rules for writing a great webquest. Learning
& Leading with Technology, 28(8), 6-9.
Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2001). Evaluating distributed learning a
metropolitan universities. Educause Quarterly, 24(4), 60-61.
41

42. References
Edington, A., & Holbrook, J. (2010). A blended learning approach to teaching
basic pharmacokinetics and the significance of face-to-face
interaction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(5), 1-11
El-Mowafy, A., Kuhn, M., & Snow, T. (2013). Blended learning in higher
education: current and future challenges in surveying education.
Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 132-150.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for
survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106.
42

43. References
Gagne, M., & Shepherd, M. (2001). Distance learning in accounting: A
comparison between a distance and traditional graduate accounting class.
T.H.E. Journal, 28(9), 58-65.
Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002, March). Introduction to hybrid courses.
Teaching with Technology Today, 6(8).
Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N.D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education:
Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gilbert, J. (2007). Knowledge, the disciplines and learning in the digital age.
Journal of Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(2), 115-122.
43

44. References
Graham, C., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J.B. (2013). A framework for
institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher
education. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4-14.
Greener, S. (2009). Identity crisis: Who is teaching whom online? Keynote
presentation at School: From Teaching Institution to Learning Space,
Conference in Tartu, Estonia April 2-3, 2009.
Grandzol, J. (2004). Teaching MBA statistics online: A pedagogically sound
process approach. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 237-
244.
44

45. References
Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2001). Student distress in web-based distance education.
Educause Quarterly, 3, 68-69.
Harriman, G. (2004). What is blended learning?, E-Learning Resources.
Retrieved April 1, 2015, from
http://www.grayharriman.com/blended_learning.htm
Heinze, A., & Procter, C. (2004). Reflections on the use of blended learning.
Salford, UK.: In Education in a Changing Environment Conference
Proceedings, University of Salford.
45

46. References
Jackson, L., Jones, S., & Rodriguez, R. (2010). Faculty actions that result in
student satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 14(4), 78-96.
Jaggars, S. (2013). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses:
Community College Student Voices. Community College Research Center
Working Paper No. 58, Columbia University.
Jefferies, A., & Hyde, R. (2010). Building the Future Students’ Blended Learning
Experiences from Current Research Findings. Electronic Journal of e-
Learning, 8(2), 133-140.
46

47. References
Jeffrey, L., Milne, J., Suddaby, G., & Higgins, A. (2009). Strategies for engaging learners in a
blended environment. New Zealand: Ako Aotearoa - The National Centre for Tertiary
Teaching Excellence.
Johnson, J. (2002). Reflections on teaching a large enrollment course using a hybrid format.
Teaching with Technology, 8(6).
Jones, K., & Chen, C.C. (2008). Blended learning in a graduate accounting course: Student
satisfaction and course design issues. The Accounting Educators' Journal, 18, 15-28.
King, K. (2001). Educators revitalize the classroom "bulletin board": A case study of the
influence of online dialogue on face-to-face classes from an adult education learning
perspective. Journal of Research on Educational Technology in Education, 33(4), 337-
354.
47

48. References
Kistow, B. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: A study of a graduate school of
business, Trinidad and Tobago. Carribean Teahing Scholar, 1(2), 115-128.
Komarnicki, J. (2014). How do they fare? A study of learning achievement and satisfaction
with blended learning for traditional-age undergraduates at moderately selective
colleges. Education Doctoral Theses Paper 184: Northeastern University.
Laumakis, M., Graham, C., & Dziuban, C. (2009). The Sloan-C pillars and boundary objects as
a framework for evaluatiing blended learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Netwroks, 12(1), 75-87.
Lin, Q. (2008). Student satisfactions in four mixed courses in elementary
teacher education program. Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 53-59
Lin, Q. (2009). Student views of hybrid learning: A one-year exploratory study. Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 57-66.
48

49. References
Maddux, C. (2004). Developing online courses: Ten myths. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 23(2), 27-33.
Marsh, D. (2012). Blended learning: Creating learning opportunties for language l
earners. Cambridge: Cambridge Univrsity Press.
Matheos, K. (2011). Innovative practices research project: COHERE report on
blended learning. Canada: Collaboration for Online Higher Education and
Research (COHERE).
Moore, M. (2013). The thoery of transactional distance. In M. Moore (Ed.),
Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 66-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates.
49

50. References
Oh, E., & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended instruction? Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 327-342.
Ooms, A., Burke, L., Linsey, T., & Heaton-Shrestha, C. (2008). Introducing e-developers to
support a university’s blended learning. Research in Learning Technology, 16(2), 111-
122.
Orhan, R. (2008). Redesigning a course for blended learning environment. Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 54-66.
Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and
directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-234.
Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a
university blended learning strategic initiative. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38-
46.
50

51. References
Papp, R. (2000). Critical success factors for distance learning. Paper presented
at the America Conference on Information Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-
6.
Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: the key to active online learning . London: Taylor
and Francis.
Serwatka, J. (1999). Internet distance learning: How do I put my course on the
web? T.H.E. Journal , 26(10), 71-74.
51

52. References
Shemla, A., & Nachmias, R. (2007). Current state of web supported courses at
Tel-Aviv University. International Journal of E-Learning, 6(2), 235-246.
Smyth, S., Houghton, C., Conney, A., & Casey, D. (2012). Students' experiences of
blended learning across a range of postgraduate programmes. Nurse
Education Today, 32(4), 464-468.
Spender, D. (2001). E-Learning are universities prepared? Online learning in a
borderless market. Conference proceedings at a conference held at
Griffiths University Gold Coast Campus. Canberra: Department of
Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 59-63.
52

53. References
Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2007). Teaching for blended learning: Reserach
perspectives from on-campus and distance students. Educ Inf Technol,
12, 165-174.
Stuart, A. (2013). Engaging Students' Learning Through a Blended. Irish
Journal of Academic Practice, 2(1), 1-24.
Tabor, S. (2007). Narrowing the distance: Implementing a hybrid learning
model for information security education. The Quarterly Review of Distanc
Education, 8(1), 47-57.
53

54. References
Tham, R., & Tham, L. (2013). Challenges facing blended learning in higher
education in Asia. International Journal of E-Learning, 12(2), 209-219.
Twigg, C. (2003a). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for
online learning. Educause Review, 38(5), 29-38.
Twigg, C. (2003b). Program in course redesign. New York, USA: National
Centre for Academic Transformation.
Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education.
International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216-223.
54

55. References
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education.
International Journal of E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94.
Wallace, R., & Young, J. (2010). Implementing blended learning: policy implications
for universities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(4), 1-13.
Waha, B., & Davis, K. (2014). University students' perspective on blended
learning. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(2),
172-182.
William, C. (2002). Learning on-line: A review of recent literature in a rapidly
expanding field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(3), 263-272.
55

56. References
Young, J. (2002). "Hybrid" teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional
and online instruction. Chronical of Higer Education, 48(28), A33-A34.
56

57. Questions?
57

58. 58