Designing Blended, Flexible, and Personalized Learning

  • Keryn PrattEmail author
  • Eugenia Petrova Kovatcheva
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


Blended, flexible, and personalized learning models are increasingly used to provide a more student-centered approach to learning. This chapter explores these models, and what current research and theory tells us about how to design these forms of learning. The aim of flexible and personalized learning is to meet the needs of student, with flexible learning focusing on how this can be done, and personalized learning on the outcomes. A common approach to implementing either flexible or personalized learning has been to use blended learning; that is, learning that occurs both online and in-person. There are many different ways in which blended learning can be implemented, with an expectation that this will continue to expand as new technologies become available. This variation in the way blended learning can be operationalized make creating universal design principles difficult. Current approaches to designing blended learning aimed at delivering flexible or personalized learning largely draw on descriptive studies of blended learning, or on theories and lessons drawn from the online and face-to-face fields. It is also common for design principles to have come from the higher education literature, where more research on the use of blended learning exists. In designing for blended learning, both the physical and online environments need considered, as do the context in which teaching and learning is to occur, the desired pedagogical approach, and what technology is available. A critical part of the design process is to ensure that learning drives the use of technology, rather than the reverse. It seems likely that blended learning will continue be used to deliver flexible and personalized learning and more investigation into how blended learning can effectively deliver flexible and personalized learning in primary and secondary schools is needed.


Blended learning Personalized learning Flexible learning Student-centred 


  1. Abdelaziz, H. A. (2012). D4S4: A four dimensions instructional strategy for web-based and blended learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(4), 220–235.Google Scholar
  2. Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 440–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. Needham: Sloan-C.Google Scholar
  4. Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, J., Ellis, S., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2013). Blended learning implementation guide. Retrieved from
  7. Bartle, E. (2015). Personalised learning: An overview. Retrieved from
  8. Benade, L., & Jackson, M. (2017). Intro to ACCESS special issue: Modern learning environments. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 744–748. Scholar
  9. Béres, I., Magyar, T., & Turcsányi-Szabó, M. (2012). Towards a personalised, learning style based collaborative blended learning model with individual assessment. Informatics in Education, 11(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  10. Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198. Scholar
  11. Cavanaugh, C., Hargis, J., Kamali, T., & Soto, M. (2013). Substitution to augmentation: Faculty adoption of iPad mobile learning in higher education. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 10(4), 270–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chandra Handa, M. (2009). Learner-centred differentiation model: A new framework. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 55–66.Google Scholar
  13. Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2013). Is K-12 blended learning disruptive? An introduction of the theory of hybrids. San Mateo: Christensen Institute. Retrieved from Scholar
  14. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Crotty, M. (1998). Constructivism: The making of meaning. In The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspectives in the research process (pp. 42–65). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  16. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Building a system of powerful teaching and learning. In R. L. Wehling (Ed.), Building a 21st century U.S. education system (pp. 65–74). Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, N., Eickelmann, B., & Zaka, P. (2013). Restructuring of educational systems in the digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 438–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Delialioglu, O. (2012). Student engagement in blended learning environments with lecture-based and problem-based instructional approaches. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 310–322.Google Scholar
  19. Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers & Education, 51(1), 474–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donert, K., & Kotsanis, Y. (2015). Education on the cloud 2015: State of the art case studies. Retrieved from
  21. Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17(0), 90–100. Scholar
  22. Futch, L., deNoyelles, A., Howard, W., & Thompson, K. (2016). “Comfort” as a critical success factor in blended learning courses. Online Learning, 20(3), 140–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerbic, P. (2011). Teaching using a blended approach – What does the literature tell us? Educational Media International, 48(3), 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gunn, T. M., & Hollingsworth, M. (2013). The implementation and assessment of a shared 21st century learning vision: A district-based approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(3), 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining cognition during student-centred, web-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(6), 767–785.­009­9117­x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hargreaves, D. (2006). Personalising learning 6: The final gateway: School design and organisation. London: Specialist Schools Trust.Google Scholar
  29. Hipkins, R. (2004). Changing school subjects for changing times. In Paper presented at the PPTA conference: Charting the future, the way forward for secondary education, Wellington.Google Scholar
  30. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. San Mateo: Christensen Institute. Retrieved from Scholar
  31. Jenkins S., Williams M., Moyer J., George M., & Foster, E. (2016). The shifting paradigm of teaching: Personalised learning according to teachers. Retrieved from
  32. Keengwe, J., & Kang, J.-J. (2012). Blended learning in teacher preparation programs: A literature review. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 8(2), 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lai, K.-W., Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student technology experiences in formal and informal learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 414–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ma’arop, A. H., & Embi, M. A. (2016). Implementation of blended learning in higher learning institutions: A review of the literature. International Education Studies, 9(3), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2013). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.Google Scholar
  36. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.Google Scholar
  37. Michigan Virtual University. (2013). Online education: A consumer awareness report. Lansing: Michigan Virtual University.Google Scholar
  38. Miliband, D. (2004). Personalised learning: Building a new relationship with schools. London: DfES.Google Scholar
  39. Monahan, T. (2000). Built pedagogies & technology practices: Designing for participatory learning. In T. Cherkasky, J. Greenbaum, P. Mambrey, & J. K. Pors (Eds.), Proceedings of the participatory design conference. Palo Alto: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.Google Scholar
  40. Murphy, R., Snow, E., Mislevy, J., Gallagher, L., Krumm, A., & Wei, X. (2014). Blended learning report. Austin: Michael & Susan Dell Foundation. Retrieved from Scholar
  41. Neyland, E. (2011). Integrating online learning in NSW secondary schools: Three schools’ perspectives on ICT adoption. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 152–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oliver, K. M., & Stallings, D. T. (2014). Preparing teachers for emerging blended learning environments. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 57–81.Google Scholar
  43. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centred learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peters, S. J. (2003). Inclusive education: Achieving education for all by including those with disabilities and special education needs. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at Scholar
  45. Peters, M. A. (2014). Personalised learning and the reform of social policy. In M. E. Mincu (Ed.), Personalisation of education in contexts: Policy critique and theories of personal improvement (pp. 89–106). Boston: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Powell, A., Rabbitt, B., & Kennedy, K. (2014). iNACOL blended learning teacher competency framework. Vienna: iNACOL.Google Scholar
  47. Powell, A., Watson, J., Staley, P., Patrick, S., Horn, M. B., Fetzer, L., Hibbart, L., Oglesby, J., & Verma, S. (2015). Blending learning: The evolution of online and face-to-face education from 2008–2015. Vienna: iNACOL.Google Scholar
  48. Puentedura, R. (2009). Transformation, technology, and education. Williamstown: Hippasus. Retrieved from Scholar
  49. Schoonmaker R. G. (2014). A blended learning approach to reading circles for English language learners. Retrieved from
  50. Sebba, J., Brown, N., Steward, S., Galton, M., James, M., with Celanton, N., & Boddy, P. (2007). An investigation of personalised learning approaches used by schools. London: DfES.Google Scholar
  51. Shand, K. & Glassett Farrelly, S. (2018). The art of blending: Benefits and challenges of a blended course for preservice teachers. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1). Available at
  52. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Boston: Innosight Institute. Retrieved from: Scholar
  53. Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Edmonton: AU Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380–393.Google Scholar
  55. Worthen, M., & Patrick, S. (2015). The iNACOL state policy frameworks: 5 critical issues to transform K-12 education. Vienna: iNACOL.Google Scholar
  56. Zaka, P. (2014). A case study of blended teaching and learning in a New Zealand secondary school, using an ecological framework. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 17(1), 24–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Otago College of EducationDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of Library Studies and Information TechnologiesSofiaBulgaria

Section editors and affiliations

  • Roumen Nikolov
    • 1
  • Kwok-Wing Lai
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Library Studies and Information TechnologiesSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.University of Otago College of EducationDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations