Interactive Learning Environments, 2014

Vol. 22, No. 6, 804–810, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745420

Blended/hybrid courses: a review of the literature and recommendations

for instructional designers and educators
Samuel A. Helms*

Center for Teaching and Learning, Regis University, Denver, USA

(Received 4 August 2010; final version received 12 March 2012)

This article explores some of the literature on blended/hybrid learning and

identifies recommendations for instructional designers and faculty. Terminology
and definitions are discussed first including the debate between the words
‘‘blended’’ and ‘‘hybrid.’’ A working definition for the article is discussed but the
article does not propose a standard definition for the field. The learning
advantages of using a blended/hybrid format are identified from the literature
including improved grades, retention and communication and teamwork. The
recommendations are discussed in four broad categories: (a) face to face and
online scheduling, (b) communication, (c) course content, and (d) other
recommendations. The article concludes with a call for future research into
blended/hybrid learning and how to best construct blended/hybrid courses from
an instructional design standpoint.
Keywords: blended learning; hybrid learning; distance learning; asynchronous
discussion; synchronous discussion

Introduction
Blended or hybrid courses are a growing trend in higher education as colleges and
universities see the advantages to mixing online and face to face content (Bleed,
2001). It follows that this new format of learning has unique instructional design
elements and considerations, just as face to face classes and purely online classes
have unique concerns.
This article aggregates some of the literature on blended learning in an attempt to
provide instructional designers and faculty with practical tools for developing and
teaching blended/hybrid courses. Before this can be done, a working term and
definition need to be established for this article. Then the recommendations of the
research can be categorized and presented for instructional designers and educators.
Finally, potential areas of future research for blended/hybrid courses are identified.
To find the relevant literature regarding blending/hybrid learning, the author
conducted a broad search for any articles with the keywords blended or hybrid. The
author then gathered the sources listed in these articles. Next, the articles collected
were divided into to groups: (1) those that made a concrete recommendation
regarding blended/hybrid learning, and (2) articles that discussed theory but did not

*Email: shelms@rmcad.edu

Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis

 Interactive Learning Environments 805

make such recommendations. Since the intended audience of this paper is

instructional designers and instructors designing for blended/hybrid formats or
teaching blended/hybrid classes, only the articles in the first category were considered
for this paper. Articles discussing theory are important but outside the scope of this
article. The search was also limited to research conducted in the United States,
although a few articles from other countries are included as well.

Defining blended/hybrid learning

The first debated point in the literature is the best word (blended or hybrid) to
describe the teaching method. This article uses the term ‘‘blended’’ as opposed to
‘‘hybrid’’ because the word blended connotes a more harmonious mixing, as opposed
to a combination of incongruent methods (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). As written
by Garrison and Kanuka (2004), ‘‘blended learning is an integration of face-to-face
and online learning experiences – not a layering of one on top of the other’’ (p. 99). A
blended course, however, means different things to different researchers and before
this article can continue, a working definition needs to be established.
Several researchers agree that blended courses can fall anywhere on a continuum
between a fully face-to-face (hereafter, f2f) course where all teaching and course
materials are provided by an instructor in a traditional classroom, and a fully online
course where all student–student and student–teacher interaction and learning
materials are presented online (Delfino, Manca, & Persico, 2005; Garrison &
Kanuka, 2004; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). For this article, the literature reviewed
considered a course to be blended if some student–student and student–teacher
interaction were based in an f2f classroom and some took place in an online
(asynchronous or synchronous) environment. As such, f2f courses that use links,
videos, or other passive material from an online source were not considered blended
courses.

Learning advantages of blended

The literature on blended learning has made some discoveries about how the blended
format affects learning. Overall, several studies found students received higher grades
in blended classes than they did in fully f2f or online classes (Dziuban & Moskal,
2001; Martyn, 2003; Twigg, 2003; Vaughan, 2007). Additionally, Dziuban and
Moskal (2001) and Vaughan (2007) reported that blended courses had higher
retention rates than fully f2f classes.
Regarding the method of communication and social presence in a blended
course, researchers have made several important discoveries. Students’ access to an
asynchronous online forum allowed students to reason and fully construct their
opinions before posting (Alim, 2007), and kept students engaged with the university
even when they were technically off-campus (Aspden & Helm, 2004). Having an
online forum also better prepares students for the f2f discussion (Aspden & Helm,
2004).
Delfino et al. (2005) state that ‘‘the combination of online and f2f seems to
contribute to a higher level of socialization and sense of togetherness among
participants and, consequently, to increase the quality of learning and the
achievement of instructional objectives’’ (p. 3). Similarly, Dietz-Uhler (2001) found
that the online component of the blended course ‘‘diminished awareness of internal
806 S.A. Helms

constraints’’ (p. 271). Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson (2004) found that a
blended format increased the effectiveness of teamwork. One possible reason for
these findings is that the community created in a blended class is different than either
f2f or online courses in that ‘‘learners can be independent of space and time – yet
together’’ (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p. 97).
An interesting finding by Aspden and Helm (2004) regarded a student’s ability to
access the online content while at home. The researchers theorized that students who
could not access the online course from home would be at disadvantage and would
perform worse than those with internet access at home. However, they found that
students without internet at home would access the online session of the course when
they were on campus, and did not feel they were at a disadvantage. The authors note
that this finding may be unique to the university where the research was conducted
and may not be generalizable to other schools.
With these advantages of blended courses in mind, So and Brush (2008) note that
just turning a traditional online class into a blended class does ‘‘not necessarily
provide students with more interactive and flexible learning experiences’’ (p. 322). As
such, instructional design best practices should be identified specific to developing a
blended course. These recommendations will be discussed next.

Instructional design recommendations for blended courses

The following recommendations provide a starting point for instructional designers
developing blended courses. For clarity, the recommendations will be discussed in
four broad categories: (a) f2f and online scheduling, (b) communication, (c) course
content, and (d) other recommendations.

F2f and online scheduling

Researchers make some recommendations for how to structure the online and f2f
sections of a blended course. Several authors recommend having the first scheduled
class be f2f (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Martyn, 2003; Michinov & Michinov, 2008).
This first f2f meeting helps establish a sense of community among the students
(Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Michinov & Michinov, 2008) and could be used to help
familiarize the students with the online learning tool (Martyn, 2003).
Additionally, Michinov and Michinov (2004) recommend having an f2f meeting
in the middle and at the end of the course. However, more frequent f2f meetings
could be beneficial to hold proctored tests (Martyn, 2003) and to enhance both the
f2f and online discussions (Delfino et al., 2005; Dietz-Uhler, 2001; Mortera-Guierrez,
2006).

Communication
In most of the literature reviewed for this article, authors recommended the use of
asynchronous discussion forums for the online portion of the class (Alim, 2007;
Aspden & Helm, 2004; Ausburn, 2004; Delfino et al., 2005; Dietz-Uhler, 2001;
Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Martyn, 2003; Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Since students are
likely to be in the same geographical area and near the campus (to attend the f2f
sessions), synchronous chat tools are also recommended by some authors (Alim,
2007; Ausburn, 2004; Delfino et al., 2005; Martyn, 2003). There are also some
 Interactive Learning Environments 807

specific recommendations for how to structure the communication in a blended

course.
In Delfino et al. (2005), the f2f meetings were used to set up the discussions in the
following online class meetings, but the authors don’t state how often they met.
Rovai and Jordan (2004) cite a similar finding. Dietz-Uhler (2001) discusses the
opposite relationship, noting that students perceived the f2f discussions as more
valuable when they were preceded by an online discussion. Mortera-Guierrez (2006)
found that to not use the online session to prepare for the f2f session was detrimental
to student learning. Taken together, the studies suggest that the discussions online
and f2f should support each other in a continuous conversation. Additionally,
Delfino et al. (2005) suggest the students should wear name badges in the f2f sessions
so students know who they were talking with online.
Aspden and Helm (2004) further recommend using the online asynchronous
forums to discuss difficult or complex topics, since this can ‘‘reduce feelings of
isolation/disengagement that might be fostered in the classroom [f2f] environment’’
(p. 250). This also allows students to approach the topic at their own pace,
facilitating self-directed learning (Ausburn, 2004).
A final recommendation from the literature regarding communication is to have
an area where students can discuss topics not related to the class (Ausburn, 2004;
Delfino et al., 2005). This creates a home base for students to talk ‘‘outside of class.’’

Course content
There are fewer recommendations about what course content should be online
versus delivered f2f. Ausburn (2004) surveyed students taking blended courses and
asked what goals they thought were most important to their learning. Among the
answers, students ranked ‘‘individualization/customization of learning,’’ ‘‘self-
directed learning,’’ and ‘‘variety in learning activities and assignments’’ as the top
three goals (p. 330). This suggests that the course should be structured both online
and f2f to provide these opportunities for the students.
Ausburn (2004) also surveyed students about what they valued having in the
online portion of the course. The top two ranked items from the students were
‘‘course announcements and reminders from the instructor’’ and ‘‘course informa-
tion documents (syllabus, schedules, outlines, grading, procedures, and policies)’’ (p.
330). In regards to the instructional material, Delfino et al. (2005) used the f2f
sessions to provide an overview of the topic and the online sessions to work through
examples.

Student motivation and experience

The students surveyed in Aspden and Helm (2004) reported that several factors
would reduce communication and negatively impact the experience of the course.
Among these were lack of email responses from the faculty member, repeating course
content in the online and f2f sessions, not keeping the online course content up to
date with the course, and miscommunication about changes in f2f meeting times.
Based on the authors’ comments, instructional designers should work to design a
blended course so that f2f and online sessions enhance the material, but do not
repeat it. Changes in meeting times could be alleviated by having set f2f and online
meeting times for every blended course in a college’s system; however Osguthorpe
808 S.A. Helms

and Graham (2003) suggest that no two blended courses will be alike. The question
of a standard blended format is an important discussion for institutions looking to
develop blended courses.
Delfino et al. (2005) also make a suggestion for blended courses that relate to
student motivation. In their study they awarded silly prizes during the f2f classes for
students’ behaviors online. For example, a prize could be given to the student who
posted in the course the latest at night.

Other recommendations
There is one other recommendation from Delfino et al. (2005) that doesn’t fit into the
other categories. They suggest that the course evaluations used for blended courses
should be specific to the blended format to capture the uniqueness of the blended
structures.

Discussion
Although there is not a lot of research regarding blended courses (Ausburn, 2004),
there are some recommendations from the literature instructional designers can
apply when developing a blended course. Future research on blended courses is
needed and would benefit the field of education. For example, in all the studies
reviewed for this article, the blended course was at a four-year college or university.
Research is needed into blended courses in two-year colleges, for-profit colleges, and
high schools.
There is a need for more research regarding the scheduling of the f2f and online
sessions of a blended course. While some authors provide initial findings in this area
(Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Martyn, 2003; Michinov & Michinov, 2008), there may
be differences in the best way to schedule a course based on the discipline, course
content, space availability, and other concerns. As such, an institution may decide to
adopt a variety of blended formats.
Additionally, how Web 2.0 tools change the definition and understanding of f2f
and online should be taken into consideration. For example, social networking tools
and location-aware devices can extend the physical classroom into the community.
Students could communicate synchronously without being in the same building.
Furthermore, that students have to meet in the same location at the same time for
the f2f sessions requires that the students all work and live close to the classroom.
Because of this, Web 2.0 technologies such as video conferencing sites can create a
virtual f2f session online.
Web 2.0 tools can also facilitate ‘‘more informal and non-formal learning
contexts which blur the boundaries between categories of learners’’ (Conole &
Alevizou, 2010, p. 12). In part, this is a result of the ability to personalize knowledge
and learning through the use of tools such as wikis and blogs. In this sense, each
class’s constructed knowledge and understanding about the material could be
slightly different. Discussing the class’s and the individual student’s personalization
of the material could be a great topic for f2f discussion.
Lastly, Web 2.0 can allow for more social learning beyond the threaded
discussion ‘‘by providing students with personal tools and by engaging them in social
networks, thus allowing learners to direct their own problem-solving process’’
(Conole & Alevizou, 2010, p. 14). It may be that Web 2.0 tools online present a more
 Interactive Learning Environments 809

efficient and easy-to-use solution toward group communication and engagement

than the actual f2f sessions. If so, this would tie into the recommendation of having
the first class session be f2f so that the students can learn to use the technologies, but
the following sessions using the Web 2.0 technologies.
Blended courses are a new and exciting area for both education and research and
may soon become a standard offering of colleges and universities (Bleed, 2001). As
such, this presents a wonderful opportunity for researchers to help establish the field
of blended courses and the best practices for instructional design. This article takes a
step in this direction, and will hopefully provide some helpful tools for instructional
designers and educators.

Notes on contributor
Dr Helms has studied instructional design and educational technology since 2002 and
traditionally researches games and simulations for education. He has also been involved in the
research, collaboration, and development of blended learning programs at three colleges and
also teaches blended courses.

References
Alim, F. (2007, May). Evaluation of a blended course from the viewpoint of constructivism.
Paper presented at the International Educational Technology Conference, Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment.
Educational Media International, 41, 245–252. doi: 10.1080/09523980410001680851
Ausburn, L.J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online
education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41,
327–337. doi: 10.1080/0952398042000314820
Bleed, R. (2001). A hybrid campus for the new millennium. Educause Review, 36(1), 17–24.
Retrieved November 6, 2012, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0110.pdf
Conole, G. & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher
education. The Open University. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from http://www.he
academy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Conole_Alevizou_2010.pdf
Delfino, M., Manca, S., & Persico, D. (2005). Harmonizing the online and face-to-face
components in a blended course on educational technology. Paper presented at The Course
on Educational Technology of the SSIS. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from http://
eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3c/fa/0b.pdf
Dietz-Uhler, B., & Bishop-Clark, C. (2001). The use of computer-mediated communication to
enhance subsequent face-to-face discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 269–283.
doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00006-1
Dziuban, C.D., & Moskal, P. (2001). Evaluating distributed learning in metropolitan
universities. Metropolitan Universities, 12(1), 41–49.
Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 950–105. doi: 10.1016/
j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Kirkman, B.I., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E., & Gibson, C.B. (2004). The impact of team
empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face
interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175–192.
Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18–
23.
Michinov, E., & Michinov, N. (2004). Identifying a transition period at the midpoint of an
online collaborative activity: A study among adult learners. Computers in Human
Behavior, 23, 1355–1371. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.12.013
Michinov, E., & Michinov, N. (2008). Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online
collaboration: Its impact on patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior
over time. Computers & Education, 50, 1540–1557. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.03.002
810 S.A. Helms

Mortera-Guierrez, F. (2006). Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning and
face-to-face instruction. International Journal on E-Learning, 5, 313–337.
Osguthorpe, R.T., & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and
directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 227–233.
Rovai, A.P., & Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A
comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5, 1–13.
So, H-J., & Brush, T.A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence
and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors.
Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
Twigg, C.A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: Lessons learned from round I of the
PEW grant program in course redesign. Paper presented at Center for Academic
Transformation, New York.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International
Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.
Copyright of Interactive Learning Environments is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.