Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

Living Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Classroom Use, Blended Learning

  • Timos AlmpanisEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_68-1

Concepts: Definitions

Blended and hybrid learning are terms that have become increasingly popular since the beginning of the twenty-first century and they are often seen providing for the best of both worlds, incorporating elements of face-to-face and online digital learning.

According to MacDonald ( 2008), the blend extends beyond the combination of face-to-face and online elements to cover a blend of various technologies, e.g., synchronous and asynchronous, as well as different pedagogical approaches:

The term (blended learning) is commonly associated with the introduction of online media into a course or programme, while at the same time recognising that there is merit in retaining face-to-face contact and other traditional approaches to supporting students. It is also used where asynchronous media such as email, forums, blogs or wikis are deployed in conjunction with synchronous technologies, commonly text or audio. (MacDonald 2008, p. 2)

Beyond the concept of a simple blend,...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allen E, Seaman J (2010) Class differences: online education in the United States 2010. Available via: http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences. Accessed 06 June 2018
  2. Barber D, Cooper L, Meeson G (2008) Learning and teaching with interactive whiteboards: primary and early years. Learning Matters, ExeterGoogle Scholar
  3. Cochrane T, Antonczak C, Keegan H, Narayan V (2014) Riding the wave of BYOD: developing a framework for creative pedagogies. Res Learn Technol 22:24637.  https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.24637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crouch CH, Mazur E (2001) Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 69(9):970–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards MR, Clinton ME (2018) A study exploring the impact of lecture capture availability and lecture capture usage on student attendance and attainment. High Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0275-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garrison DR, Vaughan ND (2008) Blended learning in higher education: framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillies CGM (2016) To BYOD or not to BYOD: factors affecting academic acceptance of student mobile devices in the classroom. Res Learn Technol 24:30357.  https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.30357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Google Expeditions (2018) Available via https://edu.google.com/expeditions/
  9. Hsiao HS, Chang CS, Lin CY, Wang YZ (2013) Weather observers: a manipulative augmented reality system for weather simulations at home, in the classroom, and at a museum. Interact Learn Environ 24(1):205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ibanez MB, Di Serio A, Villaran D, Kloos CD (2014) Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Comput Educ 71:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones N, Man Sze Lau A (2010) Blending learning: widening participation in higher education. Innov Educ Teach Int 47(4):405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joseph-Richard P, Jessop T, Okafor G, Almpanis T, Price D (2018) Big brother or harbinger of best practice: can lecture capture actually improve teaching? Br J Educ Res 44(3):377–392.  https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacDonald J (2008) Blended learning and online tutoring, 2nd edn. Gower Publishing Limited, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  14. Moss S (2012) Should mobile phones be banned in schools? Guardian article. Available via https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/nov/27/should-mobiles-be-banned-schools. Accessed 21 June 2018
  15. Ozdemir M, Sahin C, Arcagok S, Demir MK (2018) The effect of augmented reality applications in the learning process: a meta-analysis study. Eurasian J Educ Res 74:165–186.  https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2018.74.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Passey D (2016) Collaboration, visibility, inclusivity and efficiencies: a case study of a secondary school in Germany using interactive whiteboards. Lancaster University, Lancaster. Available via http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/83695/1/German_School_Report_Final.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2018Google Scholar
  17. Schmalstieg D, Hollerer T (2016) Augmented reality: principles and practice. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Themeli C, Bougia A (2016) Tele-proximity: tele-community of inquiry model. Facial cues for social, cognitive and teacher presence in distance education. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn 17(6):145–163.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2453
  19. Ugur NG, Koc T (2015) Time for digital detox: misuse of mobile technology and phubbing. World conference on technology, innovation and entrepreneurship. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 195:1022–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. YouTube 360 (2018) YouTube virtual reality vhannel. Available via https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzuqhhs6NWbgTzMuM09WKDQ/about. Accessed 21 May 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kingston UniversityLondonUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Don Passey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational ResearchLancaster UniversityLancasterUK