A blended learning framework for curriculum design and professional development.pdf

A blended learning framework for curriculum design and
professional development
Negin Mirriahi*, Dennis Alonzo and Bob Fox
School of Education & Learning and Teaching Unit, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia
(Received 5 May 2015; final version received 27 September 2015)
The need for flexibility in learning and the affordances of technology provided
the impetus for the rise of blended learning (BL) globally across higher education
institutions. However, the adoption of BL practices continues at a low pace due
to academics’ low digital fluency, various views and BL definitions, and limited
standards-based tools to guide academic practice. To address these issues, this paper
introduces a BL framework, based on one definition and with criteria and stan-
dards of practice to support the evaluation and advancement of BL in higher
education. The framework is theoretically underpinned by the extant literature and
supported by focus group discussions. The evidence supporting the criteria and
standards are discussed with suggestions for how they can be used to guide course
design, academic practice, and professional development.
Keywords: digital literacy; criteria; standards; academic development;
curriculum design
Introduction
The demand for flexibility in learning and the affordances of technology provided
the impetus for the rise of blended learning (BL) across the higher education sector.
Since the early 1990s, its popularity has increased, and recently, it has received more
attention due to education institutions attempting to offer more personalised learning
experiences. BL has the capability to deliver personalised learning when designed
with a strong focus for meeting the needs of individual students (Gaeta, Orciuoli, and
Ritrovato 2009) and provided with strong institutional support and policy to enable
more effective learning and teaching (Hargreaves 2006).
The popularity of BL, particularly in higher education contexts, however, does
not necessarily translate into advancement of academic practice due to three key
challenges. First, digital fluency or academics’ confidence and skills in using online
technologies remain low (Johnson et al. 2014) despite the availability and affordances
of digital technologies. The low digital skills of academics compromise appropriate
technology integration, limiting the facilitation of more effective student learning
(Torrisi-Steele and Drew 2013). At the moment, the use of technology for instruction
is mostly for management and administrative purposes rather than for facilitating
learning (Palak and Walls 2009).
*Corresponding author. Email: negin.mirriahi@unsw.edu.au
Responsible Editor: Carlo Perrotta, School of Education, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
Research in Learning Technology
Vol. 23, 2015
Research in Learning Technology 2015. # 2015 N. Mirriahi et al. Research in Learning Technology is the journal of the Association for Learning
Technology (ALT), a UK-based professional and scholarly society and membership organisation. ALT is registered charity number 1063519.
http://www.alt.ac.uk/. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix,
transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
1
Citation: Research in Learning Technology 2015, 23: 28451 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.28451
(page number not for citation purpose)

Second, there are various views and definitions of BL, which according to Oliver
and Trigwell (2005) ‘is ill-defined and inconsistently used’ (p. 24). Consequently, there
is no uniform understanding of BL, and hence, academic practice is often underpinned
by individuals’ own interpretations of the term rather than a consistent approach
across an institution (Hinrichsen and Coombs 2013). The inconsistencies revolve
around the design, pedagogical approaches, portion of online versus face-to-face time,
purpose of blending, and the role of technology. For example, Garrison and Kanuka
(2004) posit that the integration of differing modalities requires the combination
of the most desirable aspects of face-to-face and online environments. Further, BL
can address access, convenience, and cost-effectiveness, enabling students to save a
considerable amount of time and resources from commuting and institutions to
reduce the cost for additional buildings and facilities (Bleed 2001). However, Procter
(2003) critiques the view that BL addresses the challenge of distance, arguing that it
has a different design and delivery approach than fully distance learning. In particular,
Procter (2003) emphasises that BL requires the ‘effective combination of different
modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning’ (p. 3). This is based on the
assumption that the achievement of learning outcomes is dependent on the quality of
learning and teaching experiences.
Third, the tools available to guide and evaluate BL course designs are limited
(Smythe 2012). Though, there are available frameworks to design and evaluate BL
practices both from the perspectives of learning and teaching and IT infrastructure,
these frameworks are problematic either in their design or in the criteria and stan-
dards, or lack thereof. For example, some frameworks have identified the criteria
needed but take the form of a Likert scale with no description of standards. Smythe’s
(2012) framework has five levels of performance and claims to be standards-based, but
it lacks the descriptions of standards for each level. This is problematic as it allows
academics to have their own judgement on what is considered appropriate for each
level. Oliver (2003) provides benchmarks with criteria and standards, but it is largely
an adaptation of the principles of face-to-face teaching rather than considering
the criteria for effective BL practices. Parsell and Collaborators’ (2013) framework
includes criteria, but they are generic with emphasis on the elements of learning and
teaching with technology appearing as an additional component and not as inter-
weaved together. The use of explicit criteria and standards in BL will facilitate more
effective learning and teaching activities as the criteria can be used to benchmark
academic practice (Reed 2014).
The three issues discussed above are critical for BL implementation for enhancing
academics’ skills and confidence using technologies, formulating a consistent defini-
tion to inform academics’ practice, and providing frameworks for objective evaluation
of BL practice. We propose a standards-based BL framework based on one definition
that reconciles the discrepancies in the literature discussed under issue two above
and informed by the literature and supported by qualitative data gathered from
focus groups. The framework provides a consistent understanding of BL practice and
engages academics in self-assessment of their own practice to help them identify areas
of expertise and areas requiring further development. The framework is introduced
in the next section to provide a conceptual overview of the criteria and standards and
how they have been informed. The introduction of this proposed framework provides
academics, researchers, and others interested in BL with an opportunity to trial and/or
adapt the framework to their own contexts.
N. Mirriahi et al.
2

The blended learning framework
After investigating the various interpretations and purposes of BL in the literature, the
following consolidating definition forms the basis of the proposed BL framework: a
process of integrating the most appropriate learning and teaching strategies, technology
and/or media to provide meaningful, flexible learning experiences to achieve learn-
ing outcomes (based on Dick, Carey, and Carey 2009; Holden and Westfall 2010).
Institutions can adapt this definition to fulfil their own strategic BL directions and
provide learning experiences as appropriate for their contexts. The framework, there-
fore, guided by this definition, addresses the three issues identified. The standards-
based framework proposed in this paper can:
(1) guide course design to ensure consistent high quality BL practice across an
institution;
(2) be used by academics as a self-assessment instrument to identify their
strengths and weaknesses in BL practice; and
(3) inform professional development programs.
Method
A combination of logical, rational and theoretical approaches (Brown 1983;
Friedenberg 1995) was used in the development of the framework. The criteria and
standards were established based primarily on literature on BL frameworks and tools
for BL evaluation and with support from focus groups at one higher education insti-
tution. The development process started with a literature search from online databases
and search engines to identify existing BL frameworks and evaluation instruments
used in higher education institutions. Two focus groups were conducted with a total
of eight participants representing various disciplines and roles to collect information
regarding current BL practice, the challenges faced in terms of implementation, and
what they require to advance BL in their disciplines. Focus group discussions were
audio recorded, transcribed, and any identifiable information was removed prior to
analysis. Table 1 below shows the distribution of the focus group participants. While
the number of participants is limited, it provides an initial understanding of whether
the participants’ views support or refute the findings in the literature that inform the
proposed BL framework.
The proposed framework
The proposed BL framework contains criteria, which are the indicators of the ability
of academics in designing and delivering a BL course, and standards that define
the quality of practice. The use of criteria and standards has been proven by research
to effectively support practice and skill development (Wolf and Stevens 2007).
Table 1. Distribution of focus group participants based on role.
Role Number
Senior Administrator (Associate Dean/Director) 2
Lecturer 2
Educational Developer/Instructional Designer 3
Citation: Research in Learning Technology 2015, 23: 28451 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.28451 3

The criteria and standards will guide academics to determine their current level of
BL practice and subsequent levels of practice that they should aspire towards to
further improve their practice (Inbar-Lourie 2008). Griffin’s (2000) research revealed
that using criteria and standards can support various professionals in their skill devel-
opment and using a skills assessment instrument with criteria and standards can be
linked to identifying professionals’ zone of proximal development (ZPD), as defined
by Vygotsky (1986) as the area of opportunity for skill development. Further, the results
of a skills assessment with explicitly defined standards can inform needs-based pro-
fessional development programs and resources. This is consistent with Bruner’s (1996)
learning theory where the progression of learning should be built upon the learner’s
current level of ability.
The criteria
The criteria and standards in the proposed framework are organised around the RASE
learning design model that supports a student-centred, technology-rich environ-
ment suitable for BL. This particular model was chosen due to its suitability for BL
in technology-rich environments. Central to the RASE model is identifying Activities
for students to work on, to gain multiple skills, literacies, knowledge and content com-
petencies needed to address meeting the learning outcomes defined by a BL course.
The Resources in the RASE offer students well-structured exercises and discipline
content, that enables students to work successfully through the Activities set. Support
in the RASE provides students with assistance in technical, peer and tutor support
needed to understand how best to work through the tasks set and to offer advice
in areas students might find difficult. Evaluation (Assessment) in the RASE offers
a structured guide to help students understand how well they are doing as they work
their way through the course. The Evaluation (Assessment) stage in a blended envir-
onment also enables teachers to monitor how well individual and groups of students
are doing as they progress through the course. The Evaluation (Assessment) stage can
offer a traffic light signal to teachers, identifying students in need of further tutorial
support (Churchill et al. 2013). In the following section, each criterion is discussed with
evidence from the literature and supplemented with comments made by focus group
participants where available.
Resources
Criteria related to resources focuses on the availability of resources in general and of
those related to formative assessment.
(1) Availability of course resources. The availability of digital resources ensures
equitable and sustainable access (Bath and Bourke 2010) thus, giving students
equal opportunity to engage with course resources. Similarly, these digital re-
sources can be easily updated and re-organised for future use. Further, academics
should allow students to develop their own resources at their own level of under-
standing and interest, when appropriate to do so, so they are actively engaged in
resource development as a way to support their learning. The creation of material
informs the higher standard for this criterion (Standard C on Table 2) where not
only are resources available online but students are also creating them. One of the
N. Mirriahi et al.
4

Table 2. The blended learning framework.
Standards
Criteria Standard A Standard B Standard C
Faculty-
determined
Resources Availability of course
resources
Course resources when
possible are provided
online.
Standard A plus resources are
organised according to course
topics.
Standard B plus resources are created
or co-created by students.
Availability of
formative assessment
resources
Links to online
formative assessment are
provided.
Standard A plus the
assessments are accessed by
students to better achieve
learning outcomes.
Standard B plus assessments are
personalised for students based on
their competency to better achieve
learning outcomes.
Activities Selection of activities
for online and face-
to-face delivery
Both face-to-face and
online activities are
aligned to course
learning outcomes.
Standard A plus the online
activities offer flexible learning
opportunities.
Standard B plus students have the
opportunity to design activities or
personalize them to help achieve their
goals.
Technology to meet
students’ diverse
needs and preferences
Technology and/or
media are used to deliver
uniform activities for all
students.
Technology and/or media are
used to deliver differentiated
teaching and learning activities.
Standard B plus learning activities
are based on the unique learning
needs and preferences of students.
Online activities to
support student
learning
Online tools to support
learning activities are
provided to students.
Standard A plus the online
tools are used by students for
interactive and collaborative
learning activities.
Standard B plus students use online
tools to further facilitate self-directed,
interactive and collaborative learning
activities.
Support Support for students’
digital literacy skills
Question and answer
forum for technical
support is facilitated by
the academic.
Standard A plus online support
resources are provided.
Standard B plus students’ technical
capability is determined and
personalised training and support are
provided based on their needs.
Opportunity for
interaction
online interaction
opportunities between
students and the
academic are provided
Standard A plus a range of
online interaction
opportunities between peers
are provided.
Level B plus the online interaction
opportunities are based on the diverse
needs of students.
Research
in
Learning
Technology
Citation:
Research
in
Learning
Technology
2015,
23:
28451
-
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.28451
5
(page
number
not
for
citation
purpose)

Table 2 (Continued )
Standards
Criteria Standard A Standard B Standard C
Faculty-
determined
Feedback to support
learning
Online technologies are
used to provide feedback
on student progress.
Standard A plus a range of
online feedback methods are
used to provide feedback
throughout the semester (e.g.
audio/video, overall written, or
in-text comments).
Level B plus there is opportunity for
students to receive peer feedback
(e.g. comments on blogs or discussion
forums or reviewing each other’s
work)
Assessment
(evaluation)
Design of assessment
tasks
Where appropriate,
technology/media is used
to submit assessment
tasks.
Standard A plus students have
opportunity to use online tools
(e.g. wikis, blogs) to complete
assessment tasks.
Standard B plus students can use
different online tools to complete
their assessment that best
demonstrates their learning (e.g.
recorded presentation, wiki, blog)
Student access to
their progress and
achievement
Technology (e.g. online
assessment marks,
quizzes) is used to
inform students about
their learning
achievement.
Standard A plus students have
continuous access to an online
grade book or progress bar to
monitor activities completed or
marks to date.
Standard B plus students are
encouraged to identify their own
learning goals to track back against
their progress.
Self and peer
assessment
online technologies are
used to engage students
in self and peer
assessment activities.
Standard A plus standards-
based rubrics are used by
students to self-assess and
peer-assess.
Standard B plus continuous
self-assessment is encouraged to
help students achieve their own
intended goals.
N.
Mirriahi
et
al.
6
(page
number
not
for
citation
purpose)
Citation:
Research
in
Learning
Technology
2015,
23:
28451
-
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.28451

focus group participants, P1FG2, describes how students are actively involved
in creating and designing resources:
We use students a lot for developing our resources, they are constantly
designing our resources, and most of our resources are designed by
students themselves.
(2) Availability of formative assessment resources. Formative assessment activities
have significant impact on improving student learning (Hattie 2008) providing
opportunities for students to practice, determine their level of performance,
and set their own learning goals. Such assessments may include self-tests, peer
review, and adaptive lessons that can be facilitated through online technol-
ogies supporting students’ achievement (Yam and Rossini 2011).
Activities
Both face-to-face and online activities should facilitate learning experiences that help
students achieve the intended learning outcomes of the course.
(1) Selection of activities for online and face-to-face delivery. Once the availability
of resources has been determined, focus should turn to the selection of
activities. Matching the design of online and face-to-face activities to the
learning outcomes enables the best possible blend (Garrison and Kanuka
2004) as focus group participant, P1FG2, discusses:
. . . it’s really looking at the outcomes and how the technology can
support students developing those outcomes, and there might be
particular issues such as you might have students at a distance. That
means you need technology to enable things. It might be that you need
to be able to put students into the field, in such a virtual way, through
simulations.
The thoughtful process of designing face-to-face and online activities will ensure that
the activities in both mediums support one another rather than overlap. To achieve
this, the two environments should be integrated, as focus group participant, P2FG1,
emphasises, ‘how you integrate what you do with one with the other so that then the
two are not separate things, you are not repeating, you are not replacing, but you are
integrating’.
(2) Technology to meet students’ diverse needs and preferences. The flexibility of BL
helps meet students’ educational needs especially for those who have work and
other responsibilities (Wingard 2004). Integrating online technologies allows
students to have greater flexibility since learning does not have to be tied to a
particular time or physical space (Garrison and Kanuka 2004). Further, the
use of an online platform could address students’ learning preferences (Mohr,
Holtbrügge, and Berg 2011). Identifying and addressing students’ particular
needs have informed many of the higher standards on the proposed framework
(Standard C on Table 2). Focus group participant, P2FG1, explains that
students’ preference for learning, together with other factors such as distance
to the campus impacts attendance at face-to-face sessions:
I think different students will approach it differently as well, if they’ve
got the options. I mean, some students would still love coming to lecture,
whereas some students shy away from coming to lectures but they listen

to their [video or audio] recordings . . . so I think, as well as discipline
specific context, there is individual student context.
(3) Online activities to support student learning. The features and functionality
afforded by various technologies can significantly impact the choice of
learning activities and teaching strategies adopted. Selection of technology
and media should consider the appropriateness for achieving the learning
outcomes within given contexts (Holden and Westfall 2010) as summarised by
focus group participant, P1FG2:
. . . and this is part of digital literacy too, knowing that different tools
work differently and have different affordances. So, it’s being able to take
a step back and evaluate the new opportunities.
In addition, a number of online tools are readily available through learning man-
agement systems or through the Internet due to the advancement of web-based
technologies such as wikis, blogs, discussion forums, simulations, and synchronous
webinars that can facilitate interactive and collaborative learning enhancing student
engagement (Chen, Lambert, and Guidry 2010). This informs the higher standards
for this criterion (Standards B and C on Table 2).
Support
These criteria focus on supporting students’ digital literacy skills, responding to
queries, and providing on-going feedback.
(1) Support for students’ digital literacy skills. We cannot assume that all students
are familiar with existing learning tools as focus group participant, P3FG2,
argues:
. . . yes, some of them are, but this is an assumption . . . academics
assume that students are so much more advanced in terms of digital
literacy . . . but the research shows that they are literate in pockets, they
are really good at using Facebook perhaps, or using their phones to send
SMS messages but as far as using technologies for learning or for
professional purposes maybe they’re not so literate.
Thus, strong support for students’development of digital literacy is necessary to ensure
their effective and meaningful engagement with BL (Garrison and Kanuka 2004).
Kennedy et al. (2010) argue that students’ technological experiences and expectations
need to be managed. Focus group participant, P2FG1, further elaborates, ‘. . . what
support is available for students . . . what training and development is there, these are
the things that probably will make a better blended environment’. Further, apart from
the use of technology, students need to be trained in their role as BL learners (Cheung
and Hew 2011). Hence, as the higher standard for this criterion (Standard C on Table 2)
states, students’ technical capabilities should be identified in order for the appropriate
training resources to be provided for using the online tools effectively.
(2) Opportunity for interaction. Wagner (2006) identifies interaction as one essen-
tial element of BL, which cuts across the two modes of delivery. In both online
and face-to-face learning, interactions play significant roles as students con-
struct their own learning. Interactions in BL can take the form of transac-
tions, as outcomes or as experience. However, the sustainability and level of
N. Mirriahi et al.
8

interaction in online environments can be challenging (Wang 2010). Hence, BL
course design should make use of a variety of interaction tools to provide a
range of opportunities for students to interact with each other, academics, and
other external experts (Dziuban et al. 2006).
(3) Feedback to support learning. Central to enhancing students’ learning is the
on-going provision of feedback (Hattie and Timperley 2007). In an online
environment, technology can support the delivery of timely and effective feed-
back. One benefit of online feedback is that it can contain specific links to
learning resources (Velan et al. 2002) that are specific to the needs of each
student. Similarly, with the affordances of technology for assessment, feed-
back can be delivered through a combination of mediums: audio, video,
rubrics, in-text comments, and overall written feedback, which inform the
higher standards for this criterion (Standards B and C on Table 2). In addition,
technology can help facilitate peer feedback providing opportunity for
students to enhance their work (Li, Lu, and Steckelberg 2010). Such peer
feedback can be facilitated through comments on blogs or discussion forums
or peer review tools. This informs the third standard for this criterion
(Standard C on Table 2).
Assessment (evaluation)
These criteria focus on the design of assessment tasks, student access, and self and
peer assessment.
(1) Design of assessment tasks. In a recent study by Mirriahi and Alonzo (2015),
it was discovered that students want to engage more in all aspects of assess-
ment using online technologies. The use of technology in assessment allows
students to engage in several authentic and complex tasks (Means et al. 1993).
For instance, in clinical teaching, technology can facilitate learning through
patient simulations mitigating ethical challenges often faced with practicing
with real patients (Lateef 2010). Focus group participant, P1FG1, describes
how technology can assist with innovative assessment for students:
. . . there are new opportunities for assessment online . . . looking at sort
of deductive assessment for students, we can do that quite well in an
online environment that we can’t do on paper.
Equally important is the use of technology to develop differentiated assessment
and provide students with the option to choose how to best demonstrate their
learning through a variety of assessment submission types such as videos, posters,
presentations, and essays. Students’ autonomy to choose how they demonstrate
their learning informs the higher standard of this criterion (Standards B and C on
Table 2).
(2) Student access to their progress and achievement. Students’ access to their
progress and achievement enables them to monitor their learning development
over time, which consequently enhances their self-regulation (Sadler 1989).
For example, progress bars and grade books in online learning environments
can help students monitor the number of activities or assessments they have
completed, and their scores along the way. The ability for students to have
continued access to monitor their progress and achievement informs the higher

standards for this criterion (Standards B and C on Table 2). Further, the
provision for students to identify their own learning goals and track against
their achievement of them informs the third standard for this criterion
(Standard C on Table 2).
(3) Use of self and peer assessment. The use of self and peer assessment to improve
learning is supported by a range of literature (Dochy, Segers, and Sluijsmans
1999). Brown, Smith, and Henderson (2007) have revealed that more experi-
enced learners have stronger perceptions that collaborative work is more effec-
tive than traditional assessment practices. Integrating peer assessment in BL
course design should help develop students’ skills ‘such as critical reflection,
listening to and acting on feedback, sensitively assessing and providing feed-
back on the works of others’ (Liu and Carless 2006, p. 289). Further, the use
of standards-based rubrics for self and peer assessment provides an objec-
tive approach to help students monitor and gauge their achievement of the
intended learning outcomes prior to submitting their work. In the case of
peer assessment, such rubrics can provide an objective way for peers to
offer feedback that is focused on criteria and standards (Sadler and Good
2006).
The organisation of standards
The academic digital literacy required in BL environments can be seen as a hierarchy
of skills and attributes (Bennett 2014). Underpinned by this view, the stan-
dards established in the proposed framework include three pre-defined levels build-
ing upon one another (Standards A through C) and with an additional fourth
standard (Faculty-Determined Standard). This highest level of standard allows
individual Faculties to account for the breadth and diversity of BL and online
practices across an institution. As one of the focus group participants, P2FG1,
explains:
. . . what works in one Faculty is not going work for another Faculty, the science
and the practical subjects in Medicine, have face-to-face lab work, yes you can
have simulations, and yes you can have all the iPad apps you’ve got, but the
physical working with chemicals or whatever it is, that’s a whole different experience
to something like Journalism where a lot of the work will now be in the online
environment . . ..
The first level or standard requires academics to integrate technology to offer online
teaching and learning activities. Technology use is evident but it is more academic-
controlled. However, the second level or standard requires academics to use tech-
nology to deliver flexible learning opportunities, which are constructive, authentic and
collaborative, while the third level or standard moves towards a more enriched and
higher degree of student collaboration. In addition, in this third level, technology
allows students to have greater participation in terms of creating the resources allowing
them to learn with technology rather than just from technology (Churchill et al. 2013).
This is consistent with Darling-Hammond, Zielezinski, and Goldman’s (2014) view
that ‘the curriculum and instructional plan should enable students to create content
as well as to learn material’ (p. 15). Table 2 presents the complete proposed BL
framework.
N. Mirriahi et al.
10

Implications for academic development
To realise its full potential in transforming academic practice, the following should be
considered when using the BL framework:
(1) The framework is meant to be a formative tool, and hence should not be used
rigidly to define BL practice. Rather, all academics are encouraged to further
innovate beyond the described standards. The emerging nature and affor-
dances of technologies, together with the various characteristics of the student
cohort, should be considered to offer more flexible and effective learning
experiences.
(2) The framework is intended to be a self-assessment instrument for academic
staff to identify their current level of practice to determine areas of expertise
and areas that can be further developed. Academic development programs
should align with the criteria and standards in order to provide the necessary
support and resources for academics to enhance their practice and move
towards the higher standards.
(3) The framework should form the discussion around BL across a higher
education institution. This can help ensure that all stakeholders at a system
level have a common understanding and expectation to provide the necessary
support mechanisms such as technology infrastructure, resources, and sup-
port for academics to redesign their courses to BL.
Implications for research
There are several implications for research related to the proposed framework. First,
the framework should be trialled with academic staff across different disciplines and at
different stages of their BL practice to identify how they engage with it and whether
they find it useful for gauging their current BL practice and identifying enhancements.
While the authors intend to pilot the framework at their institution, they hope that by
introducing it as a proposed conceptual framework largely underpinned by the liter-
ature, they provide an opportunity for other researchers and educational developers
to trial the framework with their own staff or adapt it for their own contexts. Second,
as the number of focus group participants was limited, future work should include
gathering the views and perceptions of both academics and students in order to further
refine the criteria and standards. The views of students, in particular, would help
identify whether the standards associated with their engagement of online technologies
would support their learning. Finally, future research can include the inclusion of
professional development resources associated with the framework’s standards and
criteria in order to investigate how academics engage with them and how academic
development units can best support the development of BL practice across their
institutions.
Conclusion
The proposed BL framework, theoretically informed by the extant literature and sup-
ported by qualitative data collected from focus groups, addresses the three issues iden-
tified in the BL literature: (1) lack of academics’digital fluency, (2) multiple definitions
of BL, and (3) lack of standards in existing BL frameworks. First, as a self-assessment

instrument, the framework can help academic staff identify their current standard
of BL practice and the changes required to progress to the higher standards. Con-
sequently, this could lead academics to enhance their practice or seek professional
development, both, which will develop their digital literacy skills addressing the first
issue. Second, a consolidated definition of BL based on the literature forms the basis
of the framework and can be adapted by institutions to inform their own BL defi-
nitions and policies. Third, the proposed framework provides three levels of des-
criptive standards with a fourth level for Faculties to identify for themselves to address
their own disciplinary and contextual needs.
References
Bath, D. & Bourke, J. (2010) Getting Started with Blended Learning, Griffith University,
Australia, [online] Available at: https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/
267178/Getting_started_with_blended_learning_guide.pdf
Bennett, L. (2014) ‘Learning from the early adopters: developing the digital practitioner’,
Research in Learning Technology, vol. 22, 21453, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.
21453
Bleed, R. (2001) ‘A hybrid campus for the new millennium’, Educause Review, Jan/Feb, pp.
1724. Available at: http://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/erm0110.pdf
Brown, F. G. (1983) Principles of Educational Design and Psychological Testing, 3rd edn, Hoilt,
Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
Brown, G., Smith, T. Henderson, T. (2007) ‘Student perceptions of assessment efficacy in
online and blended classes’, in Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, eds A. G. Picciano
and C. Dziuban, Sloan Consortium, Needham, MA, pp. 145160.
Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D. Guidry, K. R. (2010) ‘Engaging online learners: the impact of
Web-based learning technology on college student engagement’, Computers and Education,
vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 12221232.
Cheung, W. S. Hew, K. F. (2011) ‘Design and evaluation of two blended learning
approaches: lessons learned’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 27, no. 8,
pp. 13191337.
Churchill, D., King, M., Webster, B. Fox, B. (2013) ‘Integrating learning design, inter-
activity, and technology’, in Proceedings of the 30th ascilite Conference, Sydney, pp. 139143.
Available at: http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/sydney13/program/papers/Churchill.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B. Goldman, S. (2014) Using Technology to Support
At-Risk Students’ Learning, Alliance for Excellent Education and Stanford Center for
Opportunity Policy in Education, [online] Available at: https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/
default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf
Dick, W., Carey, L. Carey, J. O. (2009) The Systematic Design of Instruction. 7th edn,
Pearson Merrill, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Dochy, F., Segers, M. Sluijsmans, D. (1999) ‘The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in
higher education: a review’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 331350.
Dziuban, C., et al., (2006) ‘Blended learning enters the mainstream’, in The Handbook
of Blended Learning, eds C. J. Bonk C. Graham, Wiley, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 195208.
Friedenberg, L. (1995) Psychological Testing: Design, Analysis and Use, Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Gaeta, M., Orciuoli, F. Ritrovato, P. (2009) ‘Advanced ontology management system for
personalised e-Learning’, Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 292301.
Garrison, D. R. Kanuka, H. (2004) ‘Blended learning: uncovering its transforma-
tive potential in higher education’, The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 7, no. 2,
pp. 95105.
Griffin, P. (2000) Competency Based Assessment of Higher Order Competencies, NSW State
Conference of the Australian Council for Educational Administration, Mudgee, NSW.
N. Mirriahi et al.
12

Hargreaves, D. (2006) A New Shape for Schooling, Specialist Schools and Academies Trust,
London.
Hattie, J. (2008) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to
Achievement, Routledge, Hoboken.
Hattie, J. Timperley, H. (2007) ‘The power of feedback’, Review of Educational Research,
vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81112.
Hinrichsen, J. Coombs, A. (2013) ‘The five resources of critical digital literacy: a framework
for curriculum integration’, Research in Learning Technology, vol. 21, 21334, doi: http://dx.
doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21334
Holden, J. Westfall, P. (2010) An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning:
Implications for Blended Learning, 2nd edn, United States Distance Learning Association,
[online] Available at: https://www.usdla.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AIMSGDL_2nd_
Ed_styled_010311.pdf
Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008) ‘Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: a focus on
language assessment courses’, Language Testing, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 385402.
Johnson, L., et al., (2014) Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education, New Media Consortium,
Austin, TX.
Kennedy, G., et al., (2010) ‘Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation
students’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 332343.
Lateef, F. (2010) ‘Simulation-based learning: just like the real thing’, Journal of Emergencies,
Trauma, and Shock, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 348352.
Li, L., Lu, X. Steckelberg, A. (2010) ‘Assessor or assessee: how student learning improves
by giving and receiving feedback’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 41, no. 3,
pp. 525536.
Liu, N. F. Carless, D. (2006) ‘Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment’,
Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 279290.
Means, B., et al., (1993) Using Technology to Support Education Reform, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Mohr, A. T., Holtbrügge, D. Berg, N. (2011) ‘Learning style preferences and the perceived
usefulness of e-learning’, Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 309322.
Mirriahi, N. Alonzo, D. (2015) ‘Shedding light on students’ technology preferences:
implications for academic development’, Journal of University Teaching Learning
Practice, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 114. doi: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol12/iss1/6/
Oliver, M. Trigwell, K. (2005) ‘Can learning be redeemed?’, E-learning, vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 1726.
Oliver, R. (2003) ‘Exploring benchmarks and standards for assuring quality online teaching
and learning in higher education’, Proceedings of the 16th Open and Distance Learning
Association of Australia Biennial Forum, Canberra, ACT, pp. 7990.
Palak, D. Walls, R.T. (2009) ‘Teachers’ belief and technology practices: a mixed-
methods approach’, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 41, no. 4,
pp. 417441.
Parsell, M. Collaborators. (2013) Standards Online Education Framework, [online] Available
at: http://www.onlinestandards.net/standards/
Procter, C. (2003) ‘Blended leaning in practice’, Proceedings of the Education in a Changing
Environment Conference, [online] Available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/27428/2/Blended
LearningInPractice.pdf
Reed, P. (2014) ‘Staff experience and attitudes towards technology-enhanced learning
initiatives in one faculty of health and life sciences’, Research in Learning Technology,
vol. 22, 22770, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.22770
Sadler, D. R. (1989). ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems’.
Instructional Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 119144.
Sadler, P. Good, D. (2006) ‘The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning’,
Educational Assessment, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 131.
Smythe, M. (2012) ‘Toward a framework for evaluating blended learning’, Future Challenges,
Sustainable Futures, Proceedings Ascilite, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 854858.
Torrisi-Steele, G. Drew, S. (2013) ‘The literature landscape of blended learning in higher
education: the need for better understanding of academic blended practice’, International
Journal for Academic Development, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 371383.

Velan, G. M., et al., (2002) ‘Web-based assessments in pathology with question mark
perception’, Pathology, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 282284.
Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and Language, MIT Press, Boston, MA.
Wagner, E. D. (2006) ‘On designing interaction experiences for the next generation of blended
learning’, In The Handbook of Blended Learning, eds C. J. Bonk C. Graham, Wiley,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 4155.
Wang, M. (2010) ‘Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using
asynchronous tools in blended learning’. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 830846.
Wingard, R. G. (2004) ‘Classroom teaching changes in web-based enhanced courses: a multi-
institutional study’, EDUCAUSE Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 2635.
Wolf, K. Stevens, E. (2007) ‘The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning’,
The Journal of Effective Teaching, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 314.
Yam, S. Rossini, P. (2011) ‘Online learning and blended learning: which is more effective’,
17th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, [online] Available
at: http://www.prres.net/papers/YAM_Online_learning_and_blended_learning.pdf
N. Mirriahi et al.
14

A blended learning framework for curriculum design and professional development.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to A blended learning framework for curriculum design and professional development.pdf (20)

More from Simar Neasy (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A blended learning framework for curriculum design and professional development.pdf