Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 417–430 | Cite as

An approach to designing and evaluating blended courses

  • Haya El-Ghalayini
  • Nuha El-Khalili


Recently, there has been an increased interest in producing electronic courses. However, literature shows that adopting e-learning does not guarantee improved learning. This is because mixing technology and content does not necessarily yield effective learning. This paper presents a systematic design process for developing blended courses for undergraduate higher education. The instructional design process is based on instructional design theories and utilized three taxonomies: Bloom Taxonomy, Redeker Taxonomy and Guerra scale. A mapping model is proposed and embedded in the design process to develop a blended course starting from the objectives and content of a traditional course. This paper also presents a evaluation process that estimates the effectiveness of the selected technologies in the design of the blended course. This effectiveness is evaluated in terms of three dimensions: course content formats, interaction and collaboration. A case study is presented to demonstrate the proposed design approach on a System Analysis and Design blended course under development.


Instructional blended course design Design evaluation 


  1. Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison, Wesley Longman. Accessed 25,June, 2010.
  3. Atif, Y., Benlamri, R., & Berri, J. (2003). Learning Objects Based Framework for Self-Adaptive Learning. Education and Information Technologies, 8(4), 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blezu, C., & Popa, E. (2008). E-learning and its Prospects in Education, Proceedings of the 12th WSEAS international conference on Computers, July 23–25 (pp. 297–302). Greecez: Heraklion.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, B., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational goals by a Committee of College and University Examiners.” Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, Longmans.Google Scholar
  6. Bower, M. (2008). Designing for Interactive and Collaborative Learning in a Web-Conferencing Environment, PhD thesis, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
  7. Bower, M. (2006). A Learning System Engineering Approach to Developing Online Courses, In Proceedings of Eighth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2006), Hobart, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. Branon, R., & Beatty, B., & Wilson, J. (2001). Developing Online Courses: a Human-Centered Approach, Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development [and] Practice Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Atlanta, GA, November 8–12.Google Scholar
  9. Chiang, G. (2002). What Kind of Support Do They Need? An Instructional Designer’s Experience in Faculty and Student Support for Online Courses. SIGUCCS’02, November 20–23, Providence, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Churches, A. (2008).Bloom's Digital Taxonomy. Accessed 20 June, 2010.
  11. Graham, C. (2006). Blended Learning Systems: Definition, Current Trends, and Future Directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Guerra, T. & Heffernan, D. (2004). The Guerra Scale”. Accessed 15 March 2010.
  13. Gruenbaum, E. (2010). Predictors of Success for Adult Online Learners: a Review of the Literature. Magazine eLearn, 2010(2).Google Scholar
  14. Hodhod, R., Ibrahim, M., Khafagy, M., et al. (2010). Issues of Choosing the Suitable Virtual Learning Environment. Research Journal of Information Technology, 2(1), 24–29.Google Scholar
  15. Iverson, K., & Colky, D. (2004). Scenario-based E-learning design. Performance Improvement, 43(1), 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kulvietiene, R. & Sileikiene I. (2006). The Blended Learning Delivery Design Model, Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Distance Learning and Web Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, September 22–24.Google Scholar
  17. Molenda, M. (2003). In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. Performance improvement, 42(5), 34. Accessed 10 March 2010.
  18. Neale, D., Carroll, J., & Rosson, M. (2004). Evaluating computer-supported cooperative work: models and frameworks. Proceedings of the. (2004). ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 112–121). Illinois, USA: Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Paragina, F., Paragina, S., & Jipa, A. (2010). E–learning A New Trend in Teachers Training Activities. Conference proceedings of E-Learning and Software for Education, 1, 115–118.Google Scholar
  20. Piskurich, G. (2003). The AMA Handbook of E-Learning—Effective Design, Implementation, and Technology Solutions. New York: AMACOM AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION.Google Scholar
  21. Redeker, G. (2003). An Educational Taxonomy for Learning Objects, Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’03), July 9–11. Greece: Athens.Google Scholar
  22. Ssemugabi, S., & Villiers R. (2007). A Comparative Study of Two Usability Evaluation Methods Using a Web-Based E-Learning Application, Proceedings of SAICSIT, Fish River Sun, South Africa, October 2–3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Petra University-Faculty of Information TechnologyAmmanJordan

Personalised recommendations