Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 479–493 | Cite as

A review of empirical research on blended learning in teacher education programs



Although blended learning has been considered as an important alternative approach that can overcome various limitations related to both face-to-face and online learning, there is relatively limited empirical studies on blended learning approach in teacher education programs. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review empirical research studies on teacher education programs using activity theory. A review of empirical research on blended learning could help to stimulate reflections on effective strategies for design and implementation of blended learning teacher education programs.


Activity theory Blended learning Literature review Teacher education Student teachers 


  1. Ajayi, L. (2009). An exploration of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of learning to teach while using asynchronous discussion board. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 86–100.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from
  3. Altun, A., Gulbahar, Y., & Madran, O. (2008). Use of a Content Management System for Blended Learning: Perceptions of Pre-Service Teacher. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(4), 138–153.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment. Educational Media International, 41(3), 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett, M., Harwood, W., Keating, T., & Saam, J. (2002). Using emerging technologies to help bridge the gap between university theory and classroom practice: challenges and successes. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bliuc, A. M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, C., & Martin, D. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and the first year experience: Integrating IWBs into pre-service teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 68–75.Google Scholar
  10. Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. (2005). Model-eliciting activities: an introduction to gifted education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 37–47.Google Scholar
  11. Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (2004). Applying activity theory to computer supported collaborative learning and work-based activities in corporate settings. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collopy, R. M. B., & Arnold, J. M. (2009). To blend or not to blend: online and blended learning environments in undergraduate teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 85–101.Google Scholar
  13. Compton, L., Davis, N., & Correia, A. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ preconceptions, misconceptions, and concerns about virtual schooling. Distance Education, 31(1), 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conrad, D. (2002). Deep in the hearts of learners: insights into the nature of online community. Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 1–19.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Dede, C. (Ed.). (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Moskal, P., Sorg, S., & Truman, B. (2004). Three ALN modalities: An institutional perspective. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream (pp. 127–148). Needham: Sloan-Consortium.Google Scholar
  17. EL-Deghaidy, H., & Nouby, A. (2008). Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme. Computers & Education, 51(3), 988–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–157.Google Scholar
  19. Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: a special report. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graff, M. G. (2003). Individual differences in sense of classroom community in a blended learning environment. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  22. Hixon, E., & So, H. (2009). Technology’s role in field experiences for preservice teacher training. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 294–304.Google Scholar
  23. Hobbs, K. (2009). The importance of etiquette in online virtual environments, Retrieved August, 10, 2011, from
  24. Hong (2008). Blending online components into traditional instruction in pre-service teacher education: The good, the bad, and the ugly. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2).Google Scholar
  25. Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in higher education: an activity theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B., & Macaulay, C. (1999). The Activity Checklist: A tool for representing the “space” of context. Interactions magazine, July, 27–39.Google Scholar
  27. Karasavvidis, L. (2009). Activity Theory as a theoretical framework for the study of blended learning: a case study. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning. Google Scholar
  28. Khine, M. S., & Lourdusamy, A. (2003). Blended learning approach in teacher education: combining face-to-face instruction, multimedia viewing and online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 671–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Korkmaz, O & Karakus, U. (2009). The Impact of Blended Learning Model on Student Attitudes Towards Geography Course and Their Critical Thinking Dispositions and Levels. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(4), 51–63.Google Scholar
  30. Kupetz, R., & Ziegenmeyer, B. (2005). Blended learning in a teacher training course: Integrated interactive e-learning and contact learning. ReCall, 17(2), 179–196.Google Scholar
  31. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian perspectives on second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 1–32). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  32. Lin, Q. (2008). Student satisfactions in four mixed courses in elementary teacher education program. Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lock, J. (2006). New image: online communities to facilitate teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663–678.Google Scholar
  34. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved August 23, 10, 2011, from
  35. Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Empirical Research on Learners’ Perceptions: Interaction Equivalency Theorem in Blended Learning. EURODL, 4(07). Retrieved from
  36. Molebash, P. (2004). Pre-service teacher perceptions of a technology-enrich methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 412–432.Google Scholar
  37. Mouzakis, C. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a blended learning approach for ICT teacher training. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(4), 459–481.Google Scholar
  38. Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can blended learning be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(2), 17–26.Google Scholar
  39. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  40. Parker, D., Robinson, L., & Hannafin, R. (2008).Blending technology and effective pedagogy in a core Course for preservice teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 49–54.Google Scholar
  41. Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette online: from nice to necessary. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryan, J., & Scott, A. (2008). Integrating technology into teacher education: How online discussion can be used to develop informed and critical literacy teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1635–1644.Google Scholar
  43. Schlager, M., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (2002). Evolution of an online education community of practice. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 129–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simpson, M. (2008). Attempting to realise the potential of blended learning: An initial teacher education case study. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? In Proceedings of the 2008 ascilite Conference.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research on K-12 online learning. Naperville: Learning Point Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Tsai, C., Shen, P., & Tsai, M. (2011). Developing an appropriate design of blended learning with web-enabled self-regulated learning to enhance students’ learning and thoughts regarding online learning. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(2), 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turvey, K. (2010). Pedagogical-research designs to capture the symbiotic nature of professional knowledge and learning about e-learning in initial teacher education in the UK. Computers & Education, 54(3), 783–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vesisenaho, M., Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Hartikainen, A., & Karkkainen, S. (2010). Blended learning with everyday technologies to activate students’ collaborative learning. Science Education International, 21(4), 272–283.Google Scholar
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wang, Y., Bonk, C., Delandshere, G., & Brush, T. (2008). Mixed methods for research on blended learning in teacher education. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 4359–4361). Chesapeake: AACE.Google Scholar
  51. Wingard, R. G. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in web-enhanced courses: a multiinstitutional study. Educause Quarterly, 27(1), 26–35.Google Scholar
  52. Yaman, M., & Graf, D. (2010). Evaluation of an international blended learning cooperation project in biology teacher education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET, 9(2), 87–96.Google Scholar
  53. Yeh, Y., Huang, L., & Yeh, Y. (2011). Knowledge management in blended learning: effects on professional development in creativity instruction. Computers & Education, 56(1), 146–156.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yilmaz, M. B. & Orhan, F. (2010). Pre-service English teachers in blended learning environment in respect to their learning approaches. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 157-164.Google Scholar
  55. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: a literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teaching and Learning Stop #7189University of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teacher educationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations