A review of empirical research on blended learning in ...

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:479–493 DOI 10.1007/s10639-011-9182-8

A review of empirical research on blended learning in teacher education programs Jared Keengwe & Jung-Jin Kang

Published online: 3 January 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract 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. Keywords Activity theory . Blended learning . Literature review . Teacher education . Student teachers

1 Introduction The Sloan Consortium defines blended instruction as a course that combines online and face-to-face learning, where 30–79% of the content is delivered online (Allen et al. 2007). Generally, blended learning is viewed as the integration of face-to-face and online learning, focusing on the use of internet-based technologies, such as emphasizing the role of online activities for extending and developing face-to-face learning (Graham 2006). According to Bliuc et al. (2007), “Blended learning describes learning activities that involve a systematic combination of co-present interaction and technologically-mediated interaction between students, teachers and learning resources” (p. 234). For the purpose of this article, blended learning includes a course that combines online and face-to-face learning and involves the systematic J. Keengwe (*) Teaching and Learning Stop #7189, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA e-mail: [email protected] J.-J. Kang Department of Teacher education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA e-mail: [email protected]

480

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:479–493

combination of face-to-face and interactions mediated by technologies between students, teachers, and learning resources. Blended learning has been considered as an important alternative approach to overcome various limitations of both face-to-face and online learning, because the blended learning approach adopts the advantages of both types of learning (Schlager et al. 2002). Additionally, blended learning is more effective than fully face-to-face or online learning in terms of students’ satisfaction and faculties’ responses (Dziuban et al. 2004; Wingard 2004), time and place flexibility, ease of using resources, increase of interactions (Lock 2006), and effectiveness of interaction between peers and instructors (Chamberlin and Moon 2005). In teacher education programs (TEPs), blended learning is seen as a strategic and effective instructional with unique features to help improve student teacher’s (STs) discussion skills, develop their communities of practice, and achieve their course purposes (Means et al. 2009). There is relatively limited empirical studies on blended learning approach in teacher education programs (Wang et al. 2008). Further, Most initial teacher education initiatives that aim for integration and the use of blended learning have done so only at a course or group-of-courses level (Simpson 2008). According to Means et al. (2009), a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies conducted from 1996 to 2008 showed that only 10 studies were related to teacher education (10 out of 176). None of these studies are empirical in nature as regards to blended learning in teacher education programs. Dede (2006) also argued that there is “little known about best practices for the design and implementation of these alternative models for professional enhancement” (p. 2). Research studies in higher education have utilized various conceptual frameworks and methods, such as the sense of classroom community (Graff 2003), student engagement and interaction (Aspden and Helm 2004), and problem-based learning (Oliver and Trigwell 2005) to examine the effectiveness of the blended learning approach. However, there is need to empirically investigate the effectiveness of blended learning in teacher education. 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. 1.1 Activity theory Activity theory has been used as a theoretical and an analytical framework for examining design and development of technology-supported courses, human-computer interaction, and online and blended learning communities (Barab et al. 2004; Karasavvidis 2009). According to activity theorists, the environments around individuals, such as society, culture, and the world, have influence in shaping their minds and activities (Lantolf and Appel 1994). Activity theorists also argue that the human mind and activities can be understood “within the context of human interaction with the world” (Kaptelinin et al. 1999, p. 28). Therefore, activity theorists stress contextualized activity, ongoing participation, and the interaction of human activity and consciousness within their communities (Barab et al. 2004; Lantolf and Appel 1994).


481

2 Method Using search engines and databases, such as ScienceDirect, ProQuest, ERIC (Education Resources Information Centre), and Google Scholar, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to locate papers on blended learning in teacher education fields. The keywords used were “blended or hybrid learning”, “teacher education,” and “preservice or prospective teachers” or “student or intern teachers” (as well as combinations of these). This search was further refined by selecting only those papers which (a) specifically focused on blended learning in teacher education, (b) reported the results of empirical research, and (c) talked about blended approach issues in teacher education. Conference papers and dissertations were not included. Special efforts were made to ensure that all relevant papers in peer-reviewed, high impact journals were selected. Consequently, 44 peer-reviewed studies were selected: 23 empirical studies and 21 non-empirical studies (opinion, conceptual studies, and other issues). For the purpose of this article, only the 23 empirical studies were analyzed. 2.1 Research questions The review of the empirical studies was guided by four research questions: 1. What components are emphasized in blended learning approaches in teacher preparation programs in terms of activity system analysis (subject, object, tools, roles, community, and rules)? 2. What tools contribute to integrating online and face-to-face learning activities in blended approaches? 3. How do communities contribute to integrating online and face-to-face learning activities in blended learning approaches? 4. What are the emerging issues in the effectiveness of blended courses in teacher preparation programs?

3 Findings The 23 empirical studies examined in this article were all conducted in traditional teacher education programs without alternative teacher certification program. Most of studies did not indicate how far along in the program the study participants were. Only four studies (Khine and Lourdusamy 2003; Lin 2008; El-Deghaidy and Nouby 2008) mentioned the participants’ year in college. These studies utilized different research methods, such as experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, longitudinal, cross sectional, case study naturalistic observation, as well as different research techniques used, such as interview, questionnaire, and content analysis. Table 1 provides a summary of the empirical studies on blended learning, and the research methods and techniques used as well as the focus of the studies.

Interview, questionnaire, content analysis Case study, content analysis

Content analysis

Content analysis

Survey, comparative study

Perceptions of a blended approach

Examined the effectiveness of online tools

Examined the effectiveness of technology tools

Perceptions of a blended approach (virtual schooling satisfaction)

Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building

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

Campbell, C. & Martin (2010). Interactive Examined the effectiveness whiteboards and the first year experience: of technology tools integrating IWBs into pre-service teacher education

Examined the effectiveness of a blended approach

Altun, A., Gulbahar, Y., & Madran, O. (2008). Use of a content management system for blended learning: perceptions of pre-service teachers

Collopy, R. M. B., & Arnold, J. M. (2009). To blend or not to blend: Online and blended learning environments in undergraduate teacher education

Compton, L., Davis, N., & Correia, A. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ preconceptions, misconceptions, and concerns about virtual schooling

Case study, content analysis

Interview, comparative study


Ajayi, L. (2009). An Exploration of pre-Service teachers’ perceptions of learning to teach while using asynchronous discussion board

Research method

Research purpose

Article

Table 1 Summary of empirical research on blended learning in teacher education

One semester

One semester

BA & MA

BA

BA

One year

One semester

One year

BA (elementary) One semester

Online/technology tools (virtual experience)

Online tools/modules

Online/technology tools



Learning community


Research period The focus (in terms of activity system perspective)

BA & in-service One semester teachers

BA

BA (elementary & secondary)

BA program or MA program

482 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:479–493

Observation

Comparative study

Survey

Survey, interview, MA focus group interview

Examined the effectiveness of improving teaching & skills through a blended approach

Examined the effectiveness of improving critical thinking through a blended approach





Khine, M. S., & Lourdusamy, A. (2003). Blended learning approach in teacher education: combining face-to-face instruction, multimedia viewing and online discussion

Korkmaz, O., & Karakus, U. (2009). The impact of blended learning model on student attitudes towards geography course and their critical thinking dispositions and levels

Kupetz, R., & Ziegenmeyer, B. (2005). Blended learning in a teacher training course: Integrated interactive e-learning and contact learning

Lin, Q. (2008). Student satisfactions in four mixed courses in elementary teacher education program

Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Empirical research on learners’ perceptions: interaction equivalency theorem in blended learning

Survey

Case study

Survey


Hong, L. (2008). Blended online components into traditional instruction in pre-service teacher education: The good, the bad, and the ugly

One semester

One semester

One semester

One semester

One semester

BA

One semester

One year

Online community

Online/technology tools Online learning community

Online management tools (Blackboard learning management system)

Online/technology tools Students’ roles

Online module (tools)


Online pedagogy (tools)



BA (elementary) One year

BA

BA

MA

BA

BA

Comparative study


EL-Deghaidy, H., & Nouby, A. (2008). Effectiveness of a blended e-Learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education program


Research method

Research purpose

Article

Table 1 (continued)

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:479–493 483

Examined the effectiveness of improving cooperation through a blended approach

Yaman, M., & Graf, D. (2010). Evaluation of an international blended learning cooperation project in biology teacher education

Survey

Examined the effectiveness of Content analysis improving online learning community through a blended approach

Survey, content analysis

Integrating collaborative PBL with blended learning to explore preservice teachers’ development of online learning communities

Examined the effectiveness of Vesisenaho, M., Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Hartikainen, A., & Karkkainen, improving collaborative S. (2010). Blended learning with everyday learning through a blended approach technologies to activate students’ collaborative learning

One semester

One semester

One year

BA

BA (secondary)

One semester

One semester

Pedagogical methods

Creating online learning community

Online (technology) tools & cooperative method


Online community

Online community


BA (elementary) One semester

BA

Case study, content analysis

Examined the effectiveness of improving teachers’ capacity through a blended approach

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

BA

Content analysis

Examined the effectiveness of improving critical literacy skills through a blended approach

Ryan, J., & Scott, A. (2008). Integrating technology into teacher education: How online discussion can be used to develop informed and critical literacy teachers


BA

Research method

observation


Research purpose

Parker, D. R., Robinson, L. E., & Hannafin, R. D. (2008). “Blending” technology and effective pedagogy in a core course for pre-service teachers

Mouzakis, C. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a blended learning approach for ICT teacher training

Article

Table 1 (continued)

484 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:479–493

BA

Survey


Yilmaz, M. B., & Orhan, F. (2010). Pre-service English teachers in blended learning environment in respect to their learning approaches

BA (secondary)

Content analysis

Examined the effectiveness of improving knowledge management skills through a blended approach

Yeh, Y., Huang, L., & Yeh, Y. (2011). Knowledge management in blended learning: effects on professional development in creativity instruction


Research method

Research purpose

Article

Table 1 (continued)

One year

One semester

Learning environment

Online/technology tools Pedagogical methods


Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:479–493 485

486


3.1 Research question: What components are emphasized in blended learning in teacher preparation programs in terms of activity systems analysis (subject, object, tools, roles, community, and rules)? In activity system analysis, activity is described as a “form of doing directed to an object” (Issroff and Scanlon 2002, p. 78). The “subject” refers to an individual or group. “Object” refers to products acted on by the subject during the activity. “Tools” refer to instructional theory, learning resources, and online tools that mediate the relationship between subject and object. “Community” refers to people who share the same goals, rules, and roles. “Rules” refer to implicit and explicit responsibilities community members should follow. “Division of labor” refers to subjects’ roles. “Outcome” is not a component of activity system analysis, but it is the overall intention of an activity system. It refers to the long-term goals of an activity, while object refers to the short-term goal. First, all subjects were student teachers (pre-service or prospective teachers). Second, object was divided into two types: (1) studies for examining the effectiveness of the blended approach, and (2) studies for examining satisfaction and perception of students (STs). Table 2 shows what objects the blended courses focused on. Tools are very important in blended learning, especially for integrating face-toface and online learning. Vygotsky (1978) stressed the role of tools that mediate and control the relationship between subjects and object (goals). Table 3 shows how pedagogical and technological tools were used in blended learning. 3.2 Question: What tools contribute to integrating online and face-to-face learning activities in a blended course? The findings above show that tools are important components in integrating online and face-to-face learning activities in a blended course. Collis and Margaryan (2004) referred to tools as instructional theory, learning resources, learning supports, and online tools and environment in mediating participants’ activities. Their review explained how tools are used to integrate face-to-face and online activities, focusing on technology and pedagogical tools. First, technology tools provide online learning spaces for student teachers (STs) to integrate their learning into learning communities. Many researchers have concluded that online discussion tools, such as chat rooms, Blackboard, Ning, Wiki, and so on, help STs share their experiences (Khine and Lourdusamy 2003; Lin 2008; Ajayi 2009). Further, Khine and Lourdusamy (2003) showed that STs got help from not only from peers, but also from the instructor, to

Table 2 Blended learning research focus in teacher education Research focus Examine the effectiveness in (15)

Content Creating online learning communities (2) Using online tools/modules (8), online pedagogy (5)

Examination of perceptions (8)

Satisfaction (3), perceptions (5)


Table 3 Pedagogical and technological tools in studies

487

Pedagogical tools

Technological tools

Cooperative learning (5)

Multimedia CD-ROM (1)

Constructive theory (1)

Blackboard (2)

Interaction (2)

Web-based model/site (3)

Problem-based learning (2)

Wiki (2)

Authentic learning experience (3)

Online lecture (1)

Universal design (1)

Online discussion/chat (10)

Knowledge management model (1)

Ning (1)

Situated learning (1)

Interactive white board (1)

Not clear (7)

Not clear (2)

solve and clear their problems through online discussion during their teaching practice. Lin (2008) noted “students felt that online discussion boards were more useful than in-class discussions because student could take the time to compose a response” (p. 56). STs felt connection and active participation through online discussion. Ajayi (2009) reported that discussion boards promote STs’ situated learning, social construction of knowledge, and customized learning experiences. The two studies examined STs’ discussion boards, and based on the findings, they concluded that the discussion board allowed the STs to participate and contribute to discussion of different topics in a more open community. Second, technology tools integrate STs’ creative ideas into practical skills and practice. Rather than providing ready-made material and web pages, Vesisenaho et al. (2010) argued that instructors help STs create and publish new material by using web pages and social software. They showed that Wiki and mobile technologies enabled STs to actively participate, communicate, and create their own materials. Hixon and So (2009) examined how technology can enhance field experiences in TPPs. They showed that STs integrated their practice skills during field experiences through technology. They further argued, “various technologies may help in supplementing and replacing traditional early field experiences” (p. 295). Third, technology tools help STs integrate their technology skills into their classrooms. Yeh et al. (2011) showed that “collaborative problem-based learning is an effective teaching approach for engaging STs in building an online learning community” (p. 1636). They believe that online learning communities contribute to STs’ active participation, knowledge creation, and achievement improvement. Arnold and Paulus (2010) also showed that using Ning enhanced STs’ sense of community. Even though “Ning was not always used in the way that the instructor had intended” (p. 194), he argued that STs appropriately used technology or reinvented it for their own use. Compton et al. (2010) used virtual early experience for STs to clarify their many misconceptions, preconceptions, and concerns. However, she was concerned that “too few good models of virtual experience with effective cooperating teachers are available for STS to observe and work with” (p. 323). Fourth, blended learning in this literature review shows the combination of various pedagogical methods. Various studies combine methods, such as problem-based

488


learning (Yeh et al. 2011), collaborative learning (Vesisenaho et al. 2010; Turvey 2010), and experiential learning (Arnold and Paulus 2010; Compton et al. 2010; Yaman and Graf 2010). The effectiveness of technology-supported curricula is more rooted in teachers’ creative use of technology, rather than in the technology itself (Zhao 2003). Therefore, blended learning is most effective when learning is integrated with hands-on technology tools, when online instruction provides a richer environment (Lin 2008), and when there is balance in face-to-face and online meeting schedules (El-Deghaidy and Nouby 2008). 3.3 Question: How do online learning communities contribute to integrate online and face-to-face learning? In a blended learning approach, communities are developed into online and face-toface communities. These two communities mostly consist of the same members, even though their community activities are conducted in different environments. However, this literature review focuses on online learning communities (OLCs) that are groups of people who use computer-mediated communication rather than face-to-face learning communities, because the blended earning approach emphasize OLCs’ roles in connecting participants’ activities. First, OLCs provide time and place for STs to develop the sense of community (Mouzakis 2008). This sense of community allows STs to collaborate and discuss their experiences and problems with their colleagues. Yeh et al. (2011) examined the process of OLCs in their study and found that OLCs help STs improve their motivation, socialization, information exchange, and tacit understanding. He argued, “when STs reach the highest level of community, they start to communicate outside of online discussion” (p. 1637). The development of communities leads them to integrate their face-to-face discussion into online discussion. Collopy and Arnold (2009) argued that “online space supported the face-to-face environment by giving STs time to think, process, and have online conversation outside of scheduled class time” (p. 99). This means that OLCs are the extended and flexible learning communities in which STs can discuss and share their experiences. OLCs also reinforce the relationships among community members by emphasizing ground rules, their roles, sharing, and collaborative learning, all of which help STs feel trust, safety, and openness. Second, OLCs demand the development of new technology tools to communicate with others effectively. Arnold and Paulus (2010) examined the effectiveness of Ning and found that this tool bonds STs and creates better learning communities that promote the STs’ success. Even though STs are accustomed to OLCs, they need more authentic experiences and communication online. Compton et al. (2010) suggested the necessity of virtual field experience, and Skype, an audio-video conferencing tool, to help STs make communication more natural. Video-based observation shows OLCs adapted for observing a variety of teaching strategies and assessment techniques and discussing and sharing content (Hixon and So 2009; Barnett et al. 2002). Third, OLCs provide authentic contexts for STs to bridge theory and practice. Turvey (2010) used a phenomenographic approach to understand how STs develop their professional practice and learning and found that OLCs provide STs with the authentic context in which parents, students, and teachers can discuss and connect.


489

This authentic context enables STs to develop their own professional knowledge. Authentic and meaning tasks are important for STs, and OLCs make STs’ learning contexts authentic (Arnold and Paulus 2010). In addition, instructors should use face-to-face learning communities to motivate and strengthen the connections among participants, and to reduce the feeling of isolation (Palloff and Pratt 1999). For instance, El-Deghaidy and Nouby (2008) considered combining an initial face-to-face meeting with early online activities as an important factor for successful blended learning. Collopy and Arnold (2009) emphasized face-to-face meetings because they help “STs feel competent with the content of the course” (p. 96). It should be required that “gentle transition such as constructing face-to-face community before rushing into the OLC (Lin 2008, p. 57).” The importance and functions of OLCs have been examined and reported in higher education fields, and the results of this literature review show what TEPs have in common with them. For instance, teachers in TEPs are required to update and develop their ongoing learning. 3.4 Question: What are the emerging issues in using blended courses in teacher preparation programs? In activity system analysis, tools and communities have been emphasized, rather than roles and rules. In the following section, we explore two issues in TEPs: Instructor and student roles in blended learning. A summary of this information is provided in Table 4. Goodyear et al. (2001) described key roles of the instructor in an online course: content facilitator, technologist, designer, manage/administrator, adviser, assessor, and researcher. However, my review shows that many students are still in passive roles. Even though much research has talked about students’ need to post, give feedback, and complete projects, their roles are still limited. By contrast, Vesisenaho et al. (2010) noted, “social software allows students to actively participate, communicate, and create their own materials” (p. 274). They emphasized students’ role as the producer of content because students have their own abilities to create and produce with the new technologies. They introduced “blended learning

Table 4 Instructors’ and students roles in blended learning Instructor’s roles

1) Encourage or support students’ discussion and participation 2) Facilitate discussion or activities 3) Manage online and face-to-face activities 4) Give feedback 5) Mentor and 6) Evaluator

Students’ roles

1) Participate actively online discussion (post their educational experiences and respond to others) 2) Produce of content 3) Give feedback

490


2.0” and emphasized flexible ways to create and support learning. This is required to construct and use available and reliable evaluation tools and criteria. Second, in activity system analysis, rules refer to formal and informal norms of behavior (Collis and Margaryan 2004), or explicit and implicit regulations that constrain people’s actions and interactions (Engestrom 2001). Tsai et al. (2011) defined rules as “etiquette and expectations for how one should behave within this community and context” (p. 1201). The common formal behaviors STs should follow, in this review, are to 1) submit at least one posting and respond to one comment, 2) participate actively and consistently, and 3) respect other people’s ideas and opinions. Even though rules are important factors for STs to be able to maintain online learning communities and activities in blended learning, most researchers have not emphasized this issue. As activities have increased in online environments, research studies focus on the importance of etiquette online (Preece 2004; Hobbs 2009; Tsai et al. 2011). According to Preece (2004), “norms that lead to good online etiquette, empathy and trust between community members provide stepping-stones for social capital development” (p. 294). Making the online learning environment, as well as the faceto-face learning environment, a reliable, safe, and respectful place is very important for successful blended learning. Conrad (2002) emphasized five explicit behaviors for building successful OLCs: presence, prepared and relevant postings, awareness, respectful behavior and compassion, and tolerance. In the blended learning environment, educators should clearly notice the rules STs keep in both the online and the face-to-face learning environments. Hobbs (2009) concludes that, “netiquette, which is etiquette in online environment, beliefs can influence participation, trust and learning online” (p. 2).

4 Implications This article has four important implications for future research on blended learning in teacher education programs. First, this review shows that even though teacher education programs (TEPs) are different from other programs in higher education, the methods or approaches used are not different from those of the higher education programs. TEPs designers should acknowledge that online learning environments are different from face-to-face classrooms in teacher education fields; they have used traditional learning theories because they did not have unique conceptual frameworks for online learning. In virtual settings, social interaction, scaffolding, peer collaboration, and learning experiences are different, and program designers should provide these concepts to teachers differently. Blended learning is not just adding face-to-face learning activities to online learning. Blended learning in TEPs should challenge and engage online learning activities to complement face-to-face activities in ways that are different from those of other higher education programs. Program designers need to modify these concepts and integrate traditional conceptual frameworks into online activities for building effective frameworks for their student teachers. Methods previsoulsy used have shown participants’ satisfactions and perceptions, and students’ achievement, but they have not clearly explained the relationships among the many factors involved in blended


491

learning. When more empirical frameworks and qualitative methods are used together, educators and student teachers in TEPs can better use the data and research findings. Second, this literature review identified that most studies have been conducted as case studies, survey-studies, and comparative studies. Yin (2003) argued, “a case study investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (p. 13). Even though the case study has this advantage, this field still needs other research methods. Blended learning is a new area, and it still does not have a rigorous conceptual framework. The activity systems analysis used in this article can be used as an analytical or conceptual framework to examine the effectiveness of blended learning and to design blended courses. Activity systems analysis shows what components should be included and how they relate to other components. Third, there is an increasing need to examine how blended courses can be utilized in traditional pre-service education programs to support the learning needs of students and meet the growing curricular needs of universities (Collopy and Arnold 2009, p. 88). However, there is still gap between “how teachers are expected to use technology and how they are actually using it” (Molebash 2004, p. 412). Even though there are interests and needs to study and provide practical methods that teachers can use in blended learning environments, more empirical research is needed to examine the effectiveness of blended learning in TEPs. Finally, rules in the online environment are another big issue. There are many concerns related to online learning, for example, cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, or cyber-harassment. Even though these problems are not mentioned in this literature review, STs will face these issues when they go into their own classrooms. Smith et al. (2005) argued that many teachers are struggling with learning and teaching in online environments because of lack the theoretical and practical understanding. Student teachers need more experiences in blended learning environments, online etiquette, and about cyber-bullying issues. In conclusion, when blended learning uses other pedagogical methods, such as problem-based learning and a community of inquiry, its effectiveness can be magnified. Therefore, it is necessary for teacher educators to integrate online activities and face-to-face activities in blended learning. Program designers should also connect online learning with face-to-face learning or with fieldwork in TEPs. Collaborative learning, project-based methods, and problem-based learning ought to be integrated in blended learning because these activities can minimize student teachers’ isolation, and enhance better understanding of the curriculum.

References 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. 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 http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/ pdf/Blending_In.pdf. 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. 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.

492


Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment. Educational Media International, 41(3), 245. 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. 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. 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. 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. Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. (2005). Model-eliciting activities: an introduction to gifted education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 37–47. 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. 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. Compton, L., Davis, N., & Correia, A. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ preconceptions, misconceptions, and concerns about virtual schooling. Distance Education, 31(1), 37. Conrad, D. (2002). Deep in the hearts of learners: insights into the nature of online community. Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 1–19. Dede, C. (Ed.). (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. 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. 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. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–157. 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. 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. 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. Hixon, E., & So, H. (2009). Technology’s role in field experiences for preservice teacher training. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 294–304. Hobbs, K. (2009). The importance of etiquette in online virtual environments, Retrieved August, 10, 2011, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/16975393/The-Importance-of-Etiquette-in-Online-VirtualEnvironments. 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). Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in higher education: an activity theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 77–83. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B., & Macaulay, C. (1999). The Activity Checklist: A tool for representing the “space” of context. Interactions magazine, July, 27–39. 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. Khine, M. S., & Lourdusamy, A. (2003). Blended learning approach in teacher education: combining faceto-face instruction, multimedia viewing and online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 671–675. 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.


493

Kupetz, R., & Ziegenmeyer, B. (2005). Blended learning in a teacher training course: Integrated interactive e-learning and contact learning. ReCall, 17(2), 179–196. 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. Lin, Q. (2008). Student satisfactions in four mixed courses in elementary teacher education program. Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 53–59. Lock, J. (2006). New image: online communities to facilitate teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663–678. 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 http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf. Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Empirical Research on Learners’ Perceptions: Interaction Equivalency Theorem in Blended Learning. EURODL, 4(07). Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/?article=397 Molebash, P. (2004). Pre-service teacher perceptions of a technology-enrich methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 412–432. 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. Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can blended learning be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(2), 17–26. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 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. Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette online: from nice to necessary. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 56–61. 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. 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. 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. Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research on K-12 online learning. Naperville: Learning Point Associates. Tsai, C., Shen, P., & Tsai, M. (2011). Developing an appropriate design of blended learning with webenabled self-regulated learning to enhance students’ learning and thoughts regarding online learning. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(2), 261. 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. 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. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 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. Wingard, R. G. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in web-enhanced courses: a multiinstitutional study. Educause Quarterly, 27(1), 26–35. 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. 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. 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. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: a literature review and metaanalysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.