University of Northern Iowa

UNI ScholarWorks

Graduate Research Papers Student Work

2017

The effects of blended learning on K-12th grade students

Laura Hesse
University of Northern Iowa

Copyright ©2017 Laura Hesse

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp Part
of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons

Let us know how access to this document benefits you

Recommended Citation
Hesse, Laura, "The effects of blended learning on K-12th grade students" (2017). Graduate Research Papers.
116. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/116

This Open Access Graduate Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at UNI
ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Research Papers by an authorized administrator of UNI
ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].
The effects of blended learning on K-12th grade students
Abstract
Blended learning is used to incorporate technology into the classroom and to aid in instruction. This literature
review examines the effects of blended learning on student engagement, student achievement, and student
perception in K-12th grade classrooms. Twenty-five peer-reviewed studies published between 2008 and 2016 were
selected for analysis in this review. The reviewed research indicates that student engagement, student
achievement, and positive student perceptions of learning increased when blended learning was used. Students
also developed additional skills through the use of blended learning, such as the ability to self-pace and self-direct.
Future research into implementing blended learning in K-12 classrooms was recommended.

This open access graduate research paper is available at UNI ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/116
The Effects of Blended Learning on K-12th Grade Students

A Graduate Review

Submitted to the

Division of Instructional Technology

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA

by

Laura Hesse

June, 2017
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 2

This Review by: Laura Hesse

Titled: The Effects of Blended Learning on K-12th Grade Students

has been approved as meeting the research requirement for the

Degree of Master of Arts.

_______________ ______________________________________
Date Approved Graduate Faculty Reader

_______________ _______________________________________
Date Approved Graduate Faculty Reader

_______________ _______________________________________
Date Approved Head, Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Abstract

Blended learning is used to incorporate technology into the classroom and to aid in

instruction. This literature review examines the effects of blended learning on student
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 3

engagement, student achievement, and student perception in K-12th grade classrooms.

Twenty-five peer-reviewed studies published between 2008 and 2016 were selected for

analysis in this review. The reviewed research indicates that student engagement, student

achievement, and positive student perceptions of learning increased when blended learning

was used. Students also developed additional skills through the use of blended learning, such

as the ability to self-pace and self-direct. Future research into implementing blended learning

in K-12 classrooms was recommended.

Keywords: blended learning, engagement, K-12, elementary, secondary

Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 4

Table of Contents
Abstract 3

Introduction 5

Methodology 8

Analysis and Discussion 9

Engagement Through Observations 9

Engagement Through On-task behavior 14

Achievement 17
Student Perceptions 26

Conclusions and Recommendations 33

Engagement 34
Achievement 35

Student Perceptions 39
Recommendations 41

References 44

The effects of blended learning on K-12th grade students

Recent test scores from around the world show that education in the United States

continues to lag behind other developed nations (DeSilver, 2015). At the same time, the job

market within the United States is changing and demanding a workforce that is more skilled

and technologically savvy. Many business leaders point to 21st century skills, including

technology skills, as the way to train the workers of the future and increase test scores for US
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 5

students (Rotherham & Willingham, 2009). One way that teachers are meeting this need is

through the use of blended learning.

The term blended learning involves technology in the classroom. More specifically, it

refers to the use of online sites and apps to deliver a portion of the curriculum while the

teacher facilitates instruction (Smith, 2015). In an early review of blended learning, Garrison

and Kanuka (2004) defined blended learning as more than just adding-in technology but

providing a “thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with

online learning experiences (p. 96).” The key difference, according to Garrison and Kanuka,

is that teachers cannot just repackage old material and throw it online. Instead, teachers must

rethink how to deliver and receive content in order to encourage students to think more

creatively and more critically. Instead of a classroom that is taught purely by a face-to-face

teacher or purely in an online setting, blended learning combines online content with face-

toface instruction and guidance. The intention is to allow students to get help from the expert,

the teacher, while working on applying the concepts that they are learning via online apps

and educational websites.

While many people have promoted the idea of blended learning as a magical cure that will

fix education, there is a definite need for a comprehensive look at what actual studies are

finding. The literature on blended learning is quite diverse, but the majority of literature

reviews, to date, have focused on blended learning at the college or graduate school level or

have focused solely on the effect on achievement. A U.S. Department of Education (2009)

meta-analysis of blended learning found that blended learning does provide higher student

outcomes, but it noted that most of the research that it was reviewing had occurred at the
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 6

college and graduate level, not at the K-12 level. It recommended an increase in studies done

at the K-12 level.

The research at the K-12 level has slowly been accumulating, but it has not been

thoroughly examined. Means, Toyama, Murphy, and Baki (2013) did a meta-analysis of

research done on blended learning from middle school to graduate programs. This analysis

looked at face-to-face learning compared to blended learning compared to online learning,

and it found that blended learning produced higher scores compared to face-to-face classes

and higher scores than just online learning alone. The analysis also noted that there was no

difference between younger learners and older learners in terms of the effectiveness of

blended learning. This analysis, however, was quite broad and covered learners aged thirteen

through forty-four. A different meta-analysis, done by Cheung and Slavin (2013), was much

more narrow and focused on blended learning in K-12 for mathematics classrooms. They

found that blended learning produced a small but positive effect on student achievement in

mathematics with a slightly higher effect on elementary school students as compared to

secondary students. All three of these meta-analyses focused solely on achievement instead

of looking at other effects that blended learning might have.

When looking at the research into blended learning in kindergarten through high

school, three major themes emerge in terms of the effects:

● engagement

● achievement

● student perceptions.
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 7

Achievement and student perceptions are easily defined, but engagement is a trickier

concept. While there are many definitions of engagement, perhaps the simplest way to define

it is “the time and energy students devote to educationally sound activities (Kuh, 2003, p.

25).” One problem with this definition, and with engagement in general, is that it is difficult

to measure. Most studies respond to this difficulty in one of two ways: using researcher

observations or measuring on-task behaviors.

Differing from the other studies mentioned above, this literature review includes four

specific elements. First, this review will focus specifically on blended learning in

kindergarten through twelfth grade classrooms, and it will cover literature from the last ten

years. Second, measures of engagement will include researcher observations and measuring

on-task behaviors. Third, this review will also cover student achievement, measured through

pretests and posttests as well as measured through standardized testing. Fourth, it will cover

student perceptions of blended learning compared to a face-to-face classroom as well as

student perceptions of blended learning compared to online learning.

This review is largely written for teachers and administrators. By looking at the

effects of blended learning, this review will show the potential benefits as well as potential

lack of benefits or even downsides to using blended learning. This will help administrators

make decisions on whether or not to focus funding towards hardware and software that

enables blended learning, while also helping teachers decide whether to pursue a blended

learning approach within their own classrooms.

Methodology

In order to find relevant articles to review, a search was conducted using both ERIC

and Google Scholar. The search terms used in the ERIC search were secondary AND
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 8

blended learning, blended learning AND engagement AND secondary, blended learning

AND middle school, electronic learning AND secondary, blended learning AND

elementary, electronic learning AND elementary. ERIC was used as a database because it

focuses on education, and it allows the user to limit the search to peer reviewed articles. Two

search methods were then used to further the number of articles under consideration. The first

method was to look for articles that cite the existing article, and the second method was to

look at the articles that are cited in the existing article. Google Scholar makes it easy to do

both methods.

Once the searches were conducted, the articles were narrowed down to include only

articles from peer-reviewed journals that had been published in the last ten years and that

included research that took place in a K-12 setting. Some of the articles used the terms

flipped classroom, hybrid learning, or electronic learning, but the researchers did use more

of a blended learning approach. All of the articles chosen used blended learning by

integrating online technology into the classroom and using it to deliver a portion of the

curriculum. Articles that did not meet these criteria were removed from the list.

After narrowing the list of articles down, each of the remaining articles was evaluated

for reliability. The journals were examined to determine that they were all peer reviewed.

Because the journals, and therefore the articles, were all peer reviewed, the authors,

themselves, were not evaluated as extensively. Instead, focus was given to evaluating the

research methods of the articles chosen. All of the articles used either qualitative or

quantitative research to explore the effects of blended learning. Articles that focused solely

on opinion were removed from the list. The remaining articles were cut down further by

looking at the quality of the research. Preference was given to articles with larger sample
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 9

sizes for quantitative research or higher quality participants for qualitative research. The

research process was cyclical. As good, quality articles were added to the final list, the

additional search methods that looked at the citations were applied to those articles to find

additional, high quality sources, which were then evaluated. Ultimately, twenty-five high-

quality research articles published in the last ten years were chosen for analysis.

Analysis and Discussion

Blended learning brings online technology into the classroom. Prominent leaders in

the United States have promoted blended learning as a way to increase student engagement

and, ultimately, student achievement (Rotherham & Willingham, 2009). But does blended

learning actually increase student engagement and achievement? How do students respond to

blended learning? This review will look at engagement, measured by observations and ontask

behavior; achievement; and student perceptions of blended learning.

Engagement Through Observations

One way that researchers determined whether or not students were engaged was

through observations. Researcher observations of student behavior overwhelmingly

supported the idea that engagement is increased through blended learning. Camahalan and

Ruley (2014); Huang and Hong (2016); Bottge, Ma, Gassaway, Toland, Butler, and Cho

(2014); and Smith and Suzuki (2015) observed treatment groups of students using blended

learning while the control group was in a traditional classroom, and all three studies included

observations that students were more engaged in the treatment group. Other studies used an

action research format without control groups. Curwood and Cowell (2011) explored how

implementing a blended learning unit into their curriculum would impact their students.

While they had no control group, they did compare the results of blended learning to
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 10

previous years of student observations and felt that students were more engaged in the

blended learning environment than they had been in a traditional setting. Jacobs (2014) and

Zaka (2013) also did not use control groups in their case studies, which looked at schools that

had implemented blended learning to determine what made that implementation successful,

but they both found that student engagement increased, which helped with the overall success

of blended learning.

Camahalan and Ruley (2014) used observations of students as one measure of the

effect of blended learning on students in an English classroom. They focused their research

on writing at the middle school level and used a relatively small sample size of only sixteen

students in one school. The students were divided into a control and treatment group, and the

lessons focused on grammar. Overall, the treatment lasted two weeks. The researchers

observed that students in the treatment group appeared to be more engaged in their task.

Because of the smallness of the sample size, it is difficult to generalize these findings.

Huang and Hong (2016) had a slightly larger sample size in their study of Taiwanese

tenth grade English students. In their study, 40 students were placed in the control group and

37 in the experimental group for a twelve-week long study. Huang and Hong were looking

specifically at whether or not blended learning increased English reading comprehension and

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills. At the end of the twelve-week

experiment, they found that students in the experimental group, who had participated in

blended learning, had shown a significantly larger increase in their ICT and English reading

comprehension skills than those in the control group. The researchers argued that this

increase in skills was because students were more actively engaged in using the technology.

Because this study had a larger sample size and lasted for a significant amount of time, it is
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 11

easier to generalize the findings and argue that blended learning caused a sustained increase

in engagement for the students involved in this study.

Bottge et al. (2014) found similar results using a much larger sample size. In their

study, Bottge and his colleagues looked at 335 students with disabilities in 31 different

middle schools. In the control group, teachers continued to teach as they normally did, but in

the treatment group, they used “Enhanced Anchored Instruction (EAI),” which consisted of

computer-based interactive lessons and videos in addition to regular classroom instruction (p.

424). The activities were largely conducted via a special software, though the researchers

implied that the Internet was also used for this instruction and in completing the projects for

each unit. The research team observed that in the treatment group, students were more

immersed in the hands-on and application activities provided by EAI than in the traditional,

more lecture-based control group.

Smith and Suzuki (2015) take the observations of Camahalan and Ruley, Huang and

Hong, and Bottge et al. one step further and extrapolate a reason for students being more

engaged in a blended classroom. In their study, Smith and Suzuki observed 56 secondary

school mathematics students in a quasi-experiment. The control group received the

traditional lecture format of the class while the treatment group gained access to embedded

multimedia content, which is multimedia content that is embedded in a website for easy

access. Much of this content was lectures and study materials recorded using screen capture

software and were made available on Google Drive so that students could watch the lectures

outside of class, if they wished, and they could re-watch lectures and pause as needed. Smith

and Suzuki observed increased engagement within the treatment group, and they argued that

this was due to the fact that students were quieter in the classroom while they watched the
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 12

videos, which led to fewer distractions for other students. While there were other factors that

may have increased engagement, Smith and Suzuki pointed out the importance of a quiet

classroom to help students focus.

Curwood and Cowell (2011) argued that the engagement in a blended classroom, a

classroom where blended learning occurs, comes not from a quieter classroom but instead

from the ability of students to explore new ideas. Curwood and Cowell led a two-year action

research project in a high school English classroom focusing on creating digital poetry. They

had students write poetry in the traditional way first using pencil and paper, and then, using

iMovie, the students digitized their poetry to try to express what their poems meant. In the

first year, they focused more on the tool and were unhappy with the results, so they modified

the experiment in the second year to focus more on the content and on creativity and to let

students explore the tool to the depth they wished. In the second year, Curwood and Cowell

noticed the students were much more deeply engaged in the task because they were given

new opportunities to be creative and try new ideas.

Both Jacobs (2014) and Zaka (2013) looked beyond a single classroom at how

blended learning affected entire schools, and they found that it increased engagement

throughout the school. Jacobs looked at eight schools in Oakland, California that had

implemented blended learning. While the first year was a struggle because too much was

implemented at once, the second year produced better results. Jacobs argued that this proved

the need to “go slow to go fast” when implementing blended learning (Jacobs, 2014, p. 37).

In the second year, teachers focused on blending learning with just a few targeted programs

instead of trying to implement a large number of new technologies at once. Teacher surveys

in the second year reported higher levels of student engagement once the changes were made.
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 13

Zaka (2013) looked only at one school in New Zealand, but he focused on how that school

had successfully implemented the change and what blended learning meant for all of the

stakeholders involved. After interviewing principals, teachers, and students, and observing

multiple classrooms, Zaka pointed out that one of the most positive elements of blended

learning was the increase in student engagement and motivation that came with blended

learning. She argued that blended learning required more interaction and collaboration, which

led to the projects being more open to a public audience because students were able to view

one another’s work. This led students to a higher level of motivation to work hard and

produce quality work.

From these various studies, it is clear that blended learning increases observed

engagement when it is implemented properly. In some classrooms, blended learning can

create a quiet environment that promotes student engagement solely with the material (Smith

and Suzuki, 2015). In other classrooms, it is not the quiet but the increased opportunity for

creativity as well as the possibilities for interaction and collaboration among students that

increase student engagement (Curwood & Cowell, 2011; Zaka, 2013). As Jacobs (2014)

pointed out, however, successful implementation of blended learning needs to place emphasis

on deliberate implementation of technology, and success was found when teachers were able

to move at a reasonable pace with administrative support of the program in place.

While Zaka and the other researchers’ observations give insight into how and potentially why

students are more or less engaged in a classroom, they rely primarily on observation and

qualitative data, which is rather subjective. A more objective way to look at engagement is to

actually measure on-task behavior to demonstrate a numerical difference or lack of difference

between traditional and blended classrooms and blended classrooms and online learning.
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 14

Engagement Identified through On-Task Behavior

On-task behavior is another factor that can be affected by blended learning. On-task

behavior can be defined as student participation during class or as the level of task

completion at the end of the class. Researchers’ results about on-task behavior were mixed.

Smith and Suzuki (2015) and Light and Pierson (2014) both saw increased work completion

and on-task behavior in a blended learning classroom. They attributed this to the ability to

self-pace. Conversely, de la Varre, Keane, and Irvin (2011) as well as Najafi, Evans, and

Federico (2014) both found that students in the treatment group, who used blended learning,

had the same level, or even a slightly lower level, of on-task behaviors as those in the control

group, who were using only online learning. Because they were not comparing students to a

control group in a traditional classroom, however, it is difficult to compare these results to

the other studies in this review. By looking at the types of activities that the different studies

used, it is possible to compare at least the blended portions of the different studies. De la

Varre et al. (2011) and Najafi et al. (2014) both used activities that were not as fully blended

as classes that saw increased student engagement through on-task behavior. It is possible that

the blended learning being used in these studies was not as effective because it was not well

executed.

Positive identification of on-task behavior.

Both Smith and Suzuki (2015) as well as Light and Pierson (2014) had similar

findings that indicated that on-task behavior increased with blended learning. Smith and

Suzuki observed that more students took adequate notes in the blended learning classroom at

one school, which they attributed to an increased ability to self-pace, allowing students to

complete all lectures, even when they were absent. Light and Pierson also saw self-pacing as
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 15

a key for student completion of work. Light and Pierson completed their research in four

Chilean schools that were similar to charter schools. To give a basis of comparison, Light and

Pierson also observed classrooms in a fifth school that was a public school in Chile. Teachers

in all five schools were using Khan Academy for classes from fourth grade through twelfth

grade. Through observations and interviews with administrators and students, the researchers

concluded that students were completing more problems in these classrooms than they would

in a regular classroom because they had the ability to self-pace and work at their own level

within the Khan Academy online materials. One issue with these results, however, is that

there is no control group for comparison. These results are based on Light and

Pierson’s perceptions as well as administrator and student perceptions of how much work

they would complete in a traditional classroom instead of their blended classroom.

Negative identification of on-task behavior.

Not all researchers found that engagement and on-task behavior increased with the

use of blended learning. Both de la Varre et al. (2011) and Najafi et al. (2014) found that

students were equally engaged or even less engaged in a blended classroom. De la Varre et

al. (2011) found in their research that some students were less likely to participate because of

a lack of immediate teacher feedback in some blended learning programs. They did a twoyear

Randomized Control Trial with 700 students at 93 rural high schools across the United States

with a focus on online distance education. The study used a control group, which did online

distance education with a facilitator who only answered technical questions and kept students

on-task, and a treatment group, which had a facilitator who would interact more with students

by offering tutoring sessions, encouraging students to keep with the program, answering

questions, and leading discussions, which made these online distance courses more of a
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 16

blended environment. In this particular study, however, the facilitator was not the course

instructor, and feedback was usually asynchronous, meaning that students did not hear back

immediately from the actual instructor. This led to frustration for many of the students, and

the observers found that students who participated at higher levels in traditional classes

participated and asked questions less in the blended course because of the disconnect with the

instructor. This particular study looks at an extreme of blended learning where most of the

content is online while only a small portion of class is done in the physical classroom, which

could have contributed to the disconnect for students. Teacher feedback is an important

aspect of learning, so having minimal teacher feedback likely created a disconnect and lower

engagement for these students.

In a more balanced blended learning environment, Najafi et al. (2014) found that

ontask behavior did not increase for the blended students. This study followed 29 Canadian

students in a college preparatory high school who were taking an economics course. The

instructor had students enroll in a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) and complete

lessons within the MOOC as part of their instruction in the course for three weeks. The

control group did not meet as a class during these three weeks. The treatment group met once

a week with the instructor for an hour. The research team used clickstream data from the

MOOC to track student on-task behavior including how many of the videos students actually

watched, how many practice quizzes they took, and how many times they retook quizzes for

a higher score. Clickstream data tracks what students have clicked on within the MOOC. It

cannot tell whether students are actively engaged in what they click on, but it can tell whether

or not they have taken the time to click through the different components of the

MOOC.
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 17

In this study, Najafi et al. found that the clickstream data for students in both groups

had no statistically significant differences, and the treatment group actually watched slightly

fewer videos than the control group. One flaw of this study is that it took place in a college

preparatory school, which has students who are more likely to be self-motivated, which could

have led to the control group having higher numbers of task completion than would be seen

in a public school. Another flaw is that it relies on clickstream data, which cannot tell

whether students actively watched the videos and absorbed any of the content. Nonetheless, it

is important to note that in both of these studies, students in a blended classroom did not

engage more, as measured by their time on-task, than those in a purely online classroom (de

la Varre et al., 2011; Najafi et al., 2014). In studies comparing a blended classroom to a

traditional classroom, however, data indicates that students do complete more tasks in the

blended environment ( Light & Pierson, 2014; Smith & Suzuki, 2015). While task

completion may be higher in a blended classroom than in a traditional classroom, that does

not always mean that students are achieving at a higher rate. If schools are going to invest in

the technology necessary for blended learning, it is important to consider not just whether or

not it will engage students, but whether it will help them achieve more.

Achievement

When it comes to achievement, the results are quite varied, though more researchers

found positive results than negative. Many researchers did find statistically significant

increases for the experimental group that used blended learning when compared to a group

that used traditional, face-to-face teaching (Bottge et al., 2014; Camahalan & Ruley, 2014;
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 18

Hall, Cohen, Vue, & Ganley, 2015; Huang & Hong, 2016; Kazu & Demirkol, 2014; Smith &

Smith, 2012; Yapici & Akbayin, 2012). Other studies that did not use a control group also

found increases in achievement for students (Ahn, Beck, Rice, & Foster, 2016; Capponi,

Nussbaum, Marshall, & Lagos, 2010). Despite these positive results, there were other studies

that produced mixed results where blended learning did not provide statistically significant

results for all of the students (Billingsley, Scheuermann, & Webber, 2009; Chang, Shu,

Liang, Tseng, & Hsu, 2014; de la Varre et al., 2011; Jacobs, 2014; Leo & Puzio, 2016; Smith

& Suzuki 2015). Finally, there were two studies that actually showed that students in the

blended learning group had slightly lower scores than those in the control group (Najafi et al.,

2014; Siko, 2014). The reasons for positive gains in blended learning compared to mixed

results or negative gains are complex and varied, but many of them relate back to the quality

of the study itself and the way that blended learning was implemented.

Positive results.

Many different studies found positive results in achievement for blended learning.

Kazu and Demirkol (2014) performed a six-week long study with 54 twelfth grade biology

students in Turkey. The students in the blended learning group, which had access to a class

blog that allowed them to answer questions, interact, and take notes collaboratively, scored

statistically significantly higher on the posttest than students in the control group, which was

a traditional, face-to-face classroom. Curious, Kazu and Demirkol looked at whether or not

gender played a role in this outcome, but they found that while females did score higher in

both groups, there was no significant evidence that one method worked better for one gender

over the other.

Reasons for positive results.

Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 19

Camahalan and Ruley (2014) and Capponi et al. (2010) also found that students in a

blended environment had significant increases in achievement, but they delved further than

Kazu and Demirkol by looking for a reason for this increase. Camahalan and Ruley (2014)

looked at middle school students in a writing program. Although their sample was small with

only sixteen students, they did show statistically significantly higher scores with the group

that used blended learning compared to the group using traditional, face-to-face learning.

Through observations, Camahalan and Ruley concluded that the increase in scores was

because the teacher was able to spend more one-on-one time with students, which helped to

increase their understanding of the material. Capponi et al. (2010) also determined that

increased interaction with the teacher was key to increasing student achievement. Originally,

their experiment was set up to be primarily online learning. They wrote a script that they

expected students to follow as they solved online problems independently on their electronic

devices. Instead, they found that students continually violated the script by seeking help from

the teacher on the problems. This led the researchers to develop a more blended learning

script that allowed students to interact with the teacher as they worked independently. After

modifying the script, student achievement went up. These two studies show an increase in

student achievement due to teacher interaction within a blended classroom when compared to

a face-to-face classroom as well as compared to a purely online classroom.

Positive results related to higher-order and lower-order skills.

Another question that researchers sought to answer was whether or not blended

learning was more suited to simple skills or complex skills. Both Huang and Hong (2016)

and Ahn et al. (2016) determined that blended learning can help students with lower level

skills that require rote memorization or were best suited to drilling. Huang and Hong studied
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 20

77 Taiwanese students in an English classroom, and they found that students had statistically

significantly higher English reading comprehension scores after spending twelve weeks using

blended learning when compared to the control group, which used only face-to-face learning.

Much of the online portion of the class involved watching videos or participating in English

language drills, which are lower level skills.

Ahn et al. (2016) also found that blended learning can be successful for lower level

skill achievement. They studied 9,204 mathematics students in the District of Columbia

Public Schools who were in grades four through eight. The researchers focused on

demographics and time in the program, First in Math (FIM), and how those two factors

compared to student achievement results. They found that time in the program was important

for lower achieving students, who had much higher gains in their achievement than students

who were already high achieving. The program was one that focused on basic, rote drills, and

the researchers determined that it was very effective for lower achieving students who may

be missing some of the basic skills that the program focused on. They argued that even

twenty hours of rote math drills using FIM per school year could improve scores for lower

achieving students and is worth the time and investment for the district. In both studies, basic

skills were enhanced through the use of blended learning.

Smith and Smith (2012), however, argued that it is not lower level skills that are best

learned in blended learning but higher level skills. They studied 51 secondary students in

California that were in a Computer-Aided Design course. While the experiment only lasted

one week, it produced statistically significantly higher scores for the experimental group,

who used blended learning through online videos to explain the content, when compared to

the control group, who learned the material using a textbook. Smith and Smith specifically
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 21

noted that student scores for the experimental group were highest on the more complex tasks

and not as significantly higher on the simpler tasks. They argued that this showed the

potential impact of blended learning on higher level skills because it offers students a variety

of ways to access the material to reach a wider variety of learners.

Positive results related to types of activities.

This ties into the idea of types of activities and how they affect the results of blended

learning. Yapici and Akbayin (2012) and Bottge et al. (2014) both had significant gains in

their blended learning group when compared to their traditional learning group, and they

attributed these gains to appropriate use of blended learning. Yapici and Akbayin (2012)

performed their study with 107 ninth grade biology students in Turkey over the course of

eleven weeks. During that time, the blended learning group participated in a wide variety of

activities, including watching videos and online animations, participating in online

discussions, and completing follow-up homework assignments and online quizzes. This

exposure to a variety of activities led to higher student engagement with the material and

statistically significantly higher scores. Bottge et al. (2014) worked with 335 students with

disabilities in mathematics. They had their blended learning students participating in a

computer-based interactive program that required more hands-on work and video problems.

They also noted higher levels of engagement, which they tied to their achievement scores.

Students in the blended learning group had statistically significantly higher scores than those

in the control group, which used just face-to-face methods.

Positive results for students with disabilities.

Bottge et al.’s (2014) study also shows the ability of blended learning to positively

affect achievement for students with disabilities. This ability is also shown in Hall et al.’s
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 22

(2015) study, which looked at using blended learning with students with learning disabilities.

Hall is a researcher with CAST, a special education company that also creates software for

classrooms, and she and her team implemented a new software at four middle schools from

four different school districts in the northeastern United States. The study had 284 students

participating, and 73 of those students had either a learning disability or health issue that

required an IEP. The control group used digital books that had some interactive content, but

they did their Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM), or formative assessments, using

pencil and paper. The treatment group had their CBM embedded in the program so that

students could complete it as they were reading. The study found that students had

statistically significantly higher scores in the treatment group that used the online, embedded

supports, and students with learning disabilities had an even higher increase of more than

10% when compared to students in the control group. These two studies show the

possibilities for blended learning to increase student achievement for students with various

disabilities.

Mixed results.

Billingsley et al. (2009), however, found mixed results when it came to using blended

learning with students with disabilities. They did a study with ten high school students with

emotional and behavioral disabilities in a self-contained classroom. During the study, they

rotated between three treatments - traditional face-to-face, blended, and purely online

learning - in order to teach nine concepts over nine weeks. At the end of each concept, the

students took a quiz over it, and at the end of the nine weeks, the most successful method was

used to teach a tenth concept. The researchers found that the most successful method was

blended learning, but no single method worked best for all of the students. Some students
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 23

were not successful at all with blended learning. This study was flawed, however, due to its

small sample size and problems with the targeted population. The study ended up missing

several data points due to student refusal to work, which is not unusual for students with

emotional and behavioral disabilities. Despite the mixed results, this study does show some

positive benefits of blended learning for some students in this population.

Several other researchers have found mixed results when it comes to blended learning

where scores were higher but not always statistically significant. Chang et al. (2014) studied

65 eleventh grade students at a vocational high school in Taiwan that were in an electrical

machinery class. The study lasted five weeks, and the blended learning group did have

slightly higher scores at the end of the study when compared to the traditional learning group,

but the difference in scores was not statistically significant. The researchers believed that the

short length of the study limited the increases in achievement, though there are other studies

with short time frames that did produce statistically significant growth in achievement (Smith

& Smith, 2012). Leo and Puzio (2016) studied 75 students at a private school that were in

ninth grade biology. The classes they observed were using more of a flipped model than true

blended learning, as most of the online learning took place outside of the classroom, but they

did incorporate some online learning activities such as interactive labs into the classroom

time as well. The results of the study were somewhat mixed. While the students in the

experimental, blended learning group, did have higher scores on all three assessments given

during the study, only one of the assessments produced scores that were statistically

significantly higher for the blended learning group compared to the traditional learning

group.
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 24

Jacobs (2014) studied eight schools in Oakland, California that introduced blended

learning across the entire school. These schools also had mixed results. While some of the

schools in the study produced statistically significant gains in achievement on standardized

tests, others only produced small gains. The Rogers Family Foundation, which funded the

experiment, argued that scores would continue to rise in subsequent years and that blended

learning may take time to produce results across the district. Teachers who were surveyed for

the study also argued that students were achieving more in the classroom, even if it was not

always reflected on standardized tests. Smith and Suzuki (2015) studied 56 secondary

students in a mathematics classroom. They found that students who were in the blended

classroom receiving online activities and the ability to self-pace only had moderately higher

achievement scores than the students in the traditional classroom, and the difference in these

scores was not statistically significant. Interestingly, though, students in the blended learning

group filled out surveys that revealed that they perceived themselves as learning more, even

when their scores were only moderately higher. While the results of all four of these studies

are not as encouraging as those that produced definitively positive results, they are still not

discouraging when it comes to blended learning. They did show positive gains for students in

a blended learning classroom when compared to a traditional classroom.

Negative results.

One study did, however, find that student scores decreased in a blended classroom

when compared to a traditional classroom. Siko (2014) studied 47 eleventh graders taking an

International Baccalaureate (IB) biology class at a large, suburban high school in the

Midwest. During the first trimester, students were taught using traditional, face-to-face

methods. In the second trimester, students were taught using blended learning. There was no
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 25

statistically significant difference between student scores from one trimester to the next, but

the scores were slightly higher for students during the traditional phase of learning. This

study is flawed in its design because it is not comparing apples to apples. Because there was

no control group, the study relies on achievement data for two different sets of content. It is

possible that the content in the second trimester was more difficult, which could have led to

lower scores during that trimester. It is hard to equate causation with blended learning when

so many factors were not controlled during this study.

When comparing blended learning with online learning, the achievement results all

tend to be mixed or even negative. De la Varre et al. (2011) studied distance education at

rural high schools in the United States where the facilitator either plays an active role,

making the classroom blended, or a passive role, keeping the classroom purely online. They

found that there were fewer dropouts in the blended program, but there was no statistically

significant difference in achievement, as reported by the facilitators. Najafi et al. (2014)

studied 29 high school economics students at a university preparatory school in Canada who

were using MOOCs, and they found that the students in the online only group had slightly

higher scores than those in the blended learning group, though the scores were not

statistically significantly different. The researchers believed that students in the blended

learning group did not watch as many of the videos in the MOOC, which they proved using

clickstream data, because they were also meeting with the teacher. Completing less of the

videos in the MOOC may have lowered their overall achievement scores.

Overall effect on achievement.

Overall, achievement is shown to be higher for students in a blended learning

classroom when compared to a traditional classroom more often than not, though the
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 26

difference is not always statistically significant. The comparison between blended learning

and online learning is not as clear. Although the US Department of Education (2009)

metaanalysis found that blended learning produced higher student outcomes than online

learning, this result was based largely on studies done at the college level. At the K-12 level,

it is far less conclusive, and the results are mixed, at best. One final aspect of blended

learning that should be considered is how students respond to it and what their perceptions of

this type of learning are. These responses can indicate how willing students are to participate

and work hard in a blended learning classroom.

Student Perceptions

Students are important change agents, and it is necessary to pay attention to their

perceptions of an implemented change in order to make that change as successful as possible.

Many researchers noted how students responded to blended learning through comments made

by students, observations made by the researcher, attitudinal surveys of students, and

interviews. The majority of researchers found that students had a positive perception of

blended learning (Chang et al., 2014; Curwood & Cowell, 2011; Hall et al., 2015; Leo &

Puzio, 2016; Light & Pierson, 2014; Siko, 2014; Smith & Suzuki, 2015; Snyder, Paska, &

Besozzi, 2014), though one research team found that students had a lowered sense of

community and a more negative view of blended learning (Wendt & Rockinson-Szapkiw,

2015). Several researchers also looked at how student perceptions of other aspects of the

classroom, such as the subject being taught or the Internet in general, were changed by

blended learning (Akgunduz & Akinoglu, 2016; Yapici & Akbayin, 2012). Other researchers

specifically focused their research on student perceptions and looked at how student

perceptions of blended learning could be manipulated for a more positive outcome and a
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 27

better acceptance of blended learning and use of technology (Daley, Hillaire, & Sutherland,

2016; Mondi, Woods, & Rafi, 2008). Overwhelmingly, these studies found support from

students for blended learning and revealed what could make blended learning most

successful.

Positive perceptions tied with engagement.

The researchers who saw positive student perceptions of blended learning found that

students felt more engaged with the blended environment. Smith and Suzuki (2015) surveyed

56 secondary mathematics students who were in an experimental group using blended

learning. They found that 80% of students preferred blended learning and perceived it to be

more engaging than the traditional classroom. Hall et al. (2015) had similar results with their

study of blended learning with sixth, seventh, and eighth grade English students, many of

whom had learning disabilities. Surveys of the students found that students felt more engaged

when the Curriculum-Based Measurement was embedded in the reading software because

they saw it as more related to what they were reading and doing. This was especially true for

students with learning disabilities. The students who completed the CBM on paper did not

always make the connection between formative assessment and classroom content. Chang et

al. (2014) had 65 eleventh grade electrical machinery students in a Taiwanese vocational

school fill out self-assessment surveys after completing the experiment in which the

experimental group was exposed to blended learning. They also found that students had more

positive perceptions of blended learning.

Interestingly, students perceived themselves as more engaged even when their scores
were the same or only moderately higher in the blended model (Chang, 2014; Smith, 2015).

Light and Pierson (2014) attribute this to the gamification model that they argue is inherent in
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 28

blended learning. They argued that students were more engaged by the blended learning

model because it felt more like a game, and this increased their desire to learn, even if it did

not increase their scores. Gamification is when teachers take aspects of traditional game

playing, such as keeping score, creating competition, and providing rewards, and apply it to

the classroom. Not all blended models use true gamification, but some students see the ability

to use online activities as more fun and game-like than a traditional, face-to-face classroom.

This was also seen in Curwood and Cowell’s (2011) work. During their action research,

which looked at using blended learning to teach a poetry unit, one of the students became

particularly engaged with the digital poetry assignment. When interviewed, the student

argued that his interest in the assignment was due to his interest in using technology.

Positive perceptions tied to flexibility.

Other students argued that their interest in blended learning was due to the flexibility,

especially when it came to catching up when they missed class. Leo and Puzio (2016) worked

with 75 9th grade biology students at a private high school. The students in the blended

learning group made repeated positive comments about the blended learning model, and the

students in the control group, which received face-to-face instruction, expressed envy of

those who were in the blended group. The students in the blended model said that they

preferred that model because it was easy to catch up in class if they missed a day of school.

Snyder et al. (2014) also found that students preferred blended learning and appreciated the

ease of catching up. The researchers were involved in an action research project in a 9th

grade Global History and Geography class. The instructor flipped some instruction by

sending home screencasts of the lectures. In class, students were exposed to blended learning

through a variety of active learning and hands-on activities. Some of these activities involved
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 29

online models and some did not. By the third year of the study, 84% of students supported

the use of the screencasts and felt it enhanced their learning because they could pause,

rewind, and re-watch at their own pace, and they could easily catch up on what they had

missed if they were not in class.

Negative perceptions.

Not all students, however, prefer a blended learning environment. Some of the

students in Snyder et al.’s (2014) experiment did not like blended learning because they felt it

was too time consuming. Sending lectures home increased their homework, and they felt that

some of the video lectures and online activities were boring compared to an interactive

lecture from their teacher. Siko (2014) also had some students who struggled with blended

learning in his study of 47 eleventh grade students in an IB biology course. After surveying

students and parents following the blended learning portion of the class, Siko found that

while many students appreciated the flexibility that went with blended learning, they

struggled with the ability to self-pace. Both students and parents acknowledged that learning

to self-pace was an important skill, but they worried that it might prevent some students from

being successful in a blended learning course.

Wendt and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2015) looked at community building in middle

school science classrooms and found that blended learning had a negative impact on

community. They divided 84 students in five different middle school classrooms into control

and treatment groups. One problem with this division is that 57 students ended up in the

treatment group and only 27 in the control, which could have skewed the data since less data

came from the control group. The control group completed their collaborative activities

faceto-face while the treatment group used Edmodo to hold synchronous and asynchronous
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 30

discussion forums as their collaborative activities. After nine weeks, students were given the

Classroom Community Scale (CCS), which is a survey that measures student perceptions of

community within the classroom. The researchers found that the students in the control group

had a statistically significantly higher sense of community than those in the treatment group.

They argued that the online discussion forums suffered from difficulty of use and the chance

for miscommunication and went on to connect the idea of community to engagement, arguing

that students who do not feel a sense of community in the classroom are less engaged in their

work.

Positive perceptions tied with an increase in skills.

While a sense of community may suffer in a blended classroom, there are other skills

and perceptions that are enhanced by blended learning. Akgunduz and Akinoglu (2016)

studied 74 seventh grade science students in Turkey over an eight-week period. They divided

students into three groups - a control group which received face-to-face instruction, an

experimental group that used blended learning, and an experimental group that had their

studies supported by social media use. Students in all three groups took two pretests and

posttests using the Science Attitude Scale (SAS) and the Self-Directed Learning Skills Scale

(SDLSS). For both surveys, students in the blended learning group scored statistically

significantly higher on the posttest than either of the other two groups. This indicates that

students in the blended learning group had a larger increase in their interest and positive

perceptions of science as well as an increase in their ability to self-direct. This ties into

Siko’s (2014) findings that students in a blended learning environment learn to self-pace and

keep themselves on task. Yapici and Akbayin (2012) also found that students had an increase

in other skills while using blended learning. Their study of 107 ninth grade biology students
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 31

in Turkey had students in the experimental group, which used blended learning, and the

control group, which used face-to-face learning, complete the Internet Use Attitude Scale

(IUAS) as a pretest and posttest. Students in the blended learning group had statistically

significant gains in their IUAS score while the control group did not. Yapici and Akbayin

(2012) argued that this shows the potential for blended learning to increase student interest in

using the Internet and being better versed in technology usage, in general.

Increasing positive perception.

Two research teams looked specifically at how to increase student reception of

Internet usage and of blended learning in order to make blended learning more successful in

the classroom. Daley et al. (2016) worked with 126 sixth grade science students at two

different midwestern middle schools. The researchers wanted to know why students were not

consistently using the embedded supports in the Investigating and Questioning our World

through Science and Technology (IQWST) curriculum and how they could increase student

usage of these supports, which would, hopefully, increase their achievement in science.

During the experiment, researchers showed students how to analyze data from the curriculum

including content knowledge, demonstrated by how many practice problems a student got

correct; support usage, demonstrated by how often students clicked on additional supports;

and difficulty of questions, demonstrated by student rankings on a Likert scale as they went

through the program. After teaching students how to read the data, they asked students to

write recommendations for how students could gain better scores in the program based on the

data they were shown. Next, the researchers had students look at their own data and then

make suggestions for how they, themselves, could do better in the program. Surprisingly, the

researchers found that some students did not use the embedded supports because they felt that
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 32

it was cheating. After going through the data with students and showing them how to read the

data, students continued their use of the curriculum. The researchers found that students who

had given themselves the advice to use more supports were 2.5 times more likely to use the

supports after seeing their own data. The researchers argued that it is important to teach

students how to analyze their own data in order to change their perceptions of how to use

blended learning programs.

Mondi et al. (2008) also looked at how to change student perceptions of blended

learning and how to get students more interested in using the technologies available to them.

During their study, the researchers worked with nineteen Malaysian Smart Schools, which

are public schools in Malaysia with a government-funded technology initiative. They

surveyed 992 students using a self-created Use and Gratification Expectancy Questionnaire

and then randomly reduced the results to 398 to achieve statistical sampling power. They

were looking specifically at what motivates students to use technology and what are students

self-perceived learning needs. They found that students’ perceptions of technology will

influence their willingness to use it. Students are most likely to use technology when they

believe that it will meet their needs, and if they are gratified in their use of the technology,

they will continue to use it. Students’ perceived needs in a technology, according to the

researchers, include a need for it to develop their knowledge, be entertaining, be aesthetically

pleasing, be easily integrated into their existing mental schema, and provide social

collaboration. The researchers argued that teachers who implement blended learning need to

be careful to choose technologies that students perceive as meeting these needs and that if the

technology fails to meet these needs, students will develop a reluctance to use that

technology again.
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 33

Overall effects on student perception.

The overwhelming majority of studies show that blended learning is positively

perceived by students. While it may not always work to build a sense of community in the

classroom (Wendt & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2015) and may cause some students difficulty if

they lack the ability to self-direct and self-pace (Akgunduz & Akinoglu, 2016; Siko, 2014), it

does develop a variety of other positive skills and perceptions. As the researchers point out,

however, it is important to make sure students understand their own data and how it is

affected by their choices when it comes to blended learning (Daley et al., 2016) and to choose

technology that appeals to students and meets their perceived needs (Mondi et al.,

2008).

Conclusions and Recommendations

The United States’ educational system is not performing to the same level as other

developed countries, and its students are suffering. The traditional classroom is leading to

lower test scores and graduating classes who are not prepared for the jobs available in a

globalized economy. Today’s jobs are geared more towards technology and innovation, but

students are not being taught these skills effectively. Business leaders are pushing for a

higher presence of technology in the classroom, and blended learning is being touted as the

way of the future. But if students are not engaged, achievement is stagnant, and students are

not receptive to the change, this new teaching style will flop.

Engagement

Does blended learning increase student engagement? I believe that it does. Numerous

studies have shown increases in student engagement through a blended learning classroom
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 34

(Bottge et al., 2014; Camahalan & Ruley, 2014; Curwood & Cowell, 2011; Huang & Hong,

2016; Jacobs, 2014; Light & Pierson, 2014; Smith & Suzuki, 2015; Zaka, 2013). Researchers

have observed students becoming more engaged with the material. While Camahalan and

Ruley (2014) had a small sample size, these conclusions were backed up by Bottge et al.

(2014) and Huang and Hong (2016) who also observed increased student engagement when

interactive technology was added to the curriculum. Case studies of schools or individual

classes that implemented blended learning also saw teacher observations of increased student

engagement (Curwood & Cowell, 2011; Jacobs, 2014; Zaka, 2013) These observations were

also backed up by quantitative data that showed increased engagement by increased task

completion (Light & Pierson, 2014; Smith & Suzuki, 2015). This increase in engagement

came because students were able to express themselves in new ways and to explore

innovative new ideas that are not available in a strictly traditional classroom.

The two studies that did not show an increase in on-task behavior and task completion

were rather unique. In both of these studies, the control group was not a traditional classroom

but a fully online distance education course. De la Varre et al. (2011) explored online

distance education with a changing role for the facilitator and found less participation from

some students due to a lack of connection with the instructor. I believe that this study actually

shows a need for an even more blended approach than de la Varre’s team used. The

disconnect came because the instructor was not in the room with the students, making

communications asynchronous. In a well-blended classroom, the instructor is present and

able to respond to student questions and concerns immediately, which would negate the

issues found in this study. In the second study, Najafi et al. (2014) were comparing a

treatment group that was using MOOCs and getting teacher led study sessions with a control
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 35

group that was only using the MOOCs. The researchers used clickstream data to determine

student engagement, which is a flawed measurement. It is impossible to tell from the

clickstream data whether the students were actively engaged in watching the videos or not. In

addition, the students who were receiving teacher led study sessions may have watched fewer

videos because they felt more confident in their understanding of the material. Despite these

two studies, the evidence of engagement through on-task behaviors and observations remains

convincing.

Achievement

Positive results.

Does blended learning increase achievement? When compared to a traditional

classroom, I believe that blended learning does increase achievement. When compared to an

online classroom, I believe that blended learning could increase achievement if implemented

well. When comparing blended learning to a traditional classroom, the majority of

researchers found that achievement was statistically significantly higher (Bottge et al., 2014;

Camahalan & Ruley, 2014; Hall et al. 2015; Huang & Hong 2016; Kazu & Demirkol, 2014;

Smith & Smith, 2012; Yapici & Akbayin, 2012). There are many reasons for why scores

might increase in blended learning, but I believe a large part of it has to do with the increased

student interaction with the teacher, which provides for more one-on-one support (Camahalan

& Ruley, 2014; Capponi et al., 2010). It is also important to note that scores increased for a

variety of types of students and types of skills. Some blended learning programs focused on

lower level skills, and they were successful in getting lower achieving students to achieve

higher scores through the use of rote drills online (Ahn et al., 2016; Huang & Hong, 2016).
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 36

This application can be quite important for districts and classes that struggle with lower

achieving students in order to bring them back up to grade level.

At the same time, I believe that blended learning has a much larger capacity than just

merely drilling students on basic skills. Blended learning also has the ability to teach higher

order skills and to really engage students in a more creative and critical thought process

(Smith & Smith, 2012). In order to do this, the way that blended learning is structured must

be carefully considered. It is not enough to just incorporate a technology that provides rote

drilling if you want students to develop higher order skills. Instead, the teacher must

deliberately choose online activities that appeal to a variety of learners and that offer a

variety of methods for accessing materials and engaging beyond just memorizing facts. By

offering a wide variety of activities that require students to work and think at a variety of

developmental levels, researchers were able to increase student achievement (Bottge et al.

2014; Yapici & Akbayin, 2012). Thus, blended learning is effective for more than just lower

level skills but can also help transform education to promote higher level thinking.

Blended learning can also be useful for students with disabilities. Hall et al. (2015)

found that students with learning disabilities had even higher gains than their classmates, who

did not have learning disabilities, when they used blended learning. The embedded supports

available in many blended learning softwares can really help students who are struggling

achieve larger gains in achievement. This does not just apply to lower achieving students, as

previously explored, but also to students with learning disabilities. Billingsley et al. (2014)

also looked at students with disabilities, but they focused on emotional and behavioral

disabilities. Their results were not as conclusive as Hall et al.’s, but they did find that blended

learning worked better for most students when compared to traditional or to purely online
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 37

learning. While blended learning may not have worked for all of the students in this study, it

did work better than any other method, which is encouraging. Students with emotional and

behavioral disabilities can be a hard population to connect with and reach, so a method that

could reach the majority of students is definitely one worth exploring.

Flawed designs.

While the majority of researchers found statistically significant positive gains, some

researchers saw only moderate gains that were not statistically significant (Chang et al, 2014;

de la Varre et al., 2011; Jacobs, 2014; Leo & Puzio, 2016; Smith & Suzuki, 2015). These

gains are not as definitive as those that were statistically significant, but they are still positive

towards blended learning. Several of the studies that did not have statistically significant

gains also mentioned that the time frame for the study may have been too short. Researchers

believed that, given more time, students would show higher gains in the blended group

(Chang et al., 2014; Jacobs, 2014). Several of the experiments also could have benefited from

a better blended model. Leo and Puzio (2016) used more of a flipped model than a truly

blended model because they sent most of the online activities home as homework, though

they did do some online work in class. The online activities also tended to be video lectures

and not as many interactive, higher order thinking activities. It is possible that students would

have achieved even higher gains if they had been exposed to more engaging online material.

De la Varre et al. (2011) also had a blended environment that needed work. They were

comparing online learning to a blended environment, but in the blended classroom, the

instructor was still not present in the classroom. Instead, a facilitator helped students and

worked to keep them engaged. The largest student complaint in this study was the delay in

communication with the actual instructor, which led to frustration and confusion. It is
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 38

possible that a deeper blending that allowed the instructor to be face-to-face instead of at a

distance would have enabled students to have higher achievement. Whether or not a better

blended learning environment would have increased scores even more, all of these studies did

show that blended learning does increase scores, just not to a statistically significant level.

Only two studies found that blended learning did not increase scores (Najafi et al.,

2014; Siko, 2014). Both of these studies had flaws. Najafi et al.’s (2014) study had a smaller

sample size at only 29 students, and the study took place in a university preparatory school,

which may have affected student motivation. Furthermore, the blended learning group was

not a fully blended class. Students only met with the teacher for one hour a week, and it was

to review the videos they were watching in the MOOC. There was less one-on-one

interaction and time with the teacher than a well-blended classroom should have. I believe

that if the blended environment had been better designed, the students would have had higher

increases in achievement. Siko’s (2014) study also had flaws because it had no control group.

One trimester, students were exposed to a face-to-face classroom, and the next trimester, they

were exposed to blended learning. The scores were slightly higher in the first trimester,

though not statistically significant. It is highly possible that the change in material led to a

change in scores. Oftentimes, the further students are in a course, the more difficult the

material is. This could easily account for the slightly lower scores in the second trimester.

Siko would need to repeat this experiment with a control group to prove any kind of

causation with blended learning. I believe that the evidence of positive correlation between

blended learning and achievement far outweighs the two studies that had negative correlation

and flawed studies.

Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 39

Student Perceptions

Results.

Furthermore, several of the studies asked students to rate their own perceptions of

blended learning. This may be one of the most compelling pieces of evidence as it points to

the students’ own perceptions. On-task behavior, observations, and test scores cannot tell the

researcher if the student’s brain is truly engaged or if they are merely going through the

motions. The studies that looked at student perceptions found that students perceived

themselves to be much more engaged in a blended classroom and that they preferred this

style of learning (Chang et al., 2014; Curwood & Cowell, 2011; Hall et al., 2015; Leo &

Puzio, 2016; Light & Pierson, 2014; Smith & Suzuki, 2015; Snyder et al., 2014). In some

studies, students had mixed perceptions. They appreciated the flexibility and ease of blended

learning but did struggle with their own ability to self-direct and self-pace (Akgunduz &

Akinoglu, 2016; Siko, 2014). While these struggles did affect student perceptions, many

students also did acknowledge that these struggles were good for them. The ability to

selfdirect and self-pace are incredibly important skills in today’s society and job market.

These are some of the skills that teachers and business leaders are hoping to prepare students

to have, so it is actually a positive that students saw these skills as necessary for a blended

learning classroom. In addition, it can increase a student’s positive perception of the subject

that they are learning (Akgunduz & Akinoglu, 2016), and it can increase student’s ability to

use the Internet as well as student’s positive perceptions of Internet use (Yapici & Akbayin,

2012). Clearly, blended learning has an important, positive impact on student perceptions and

skills.
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 40

The one study that found decreased student perceptions used an activity that was not

particularly well-suited to blended learning (Wendt & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2015). While

collaboration can be done quite well in a blended classroom, merely holding a discussion

online instead of face-to-face is not the best use of technology. Blogging and responding to

each other or having students collaborate or interact with experts via Skype or Twitter would

have been a better way to increase collaboration and community. Despite the findings of this

one study, most of the studies indicated an increased student sense of engagement and an

appreciation for blended learning.

How to increase positive perceptions.

There are also ways to increase positive student perceptions of blended learning and

to ensure that blended learning is successful. Daley et al. (2016) found that students as young

as sixth grade are able to understand and analyze their own data from blended learning. By

showing students how their use of technology impacts their achievement, teachers can help

students to better understand how to properly use the technologies involved in blended

learning. Using the technologies more effectively can lead to more positive gains, which can,

in turn, lead to more positive student attitudes about blended learning. This is clearly shown

by Mondi et al. (2008) in their study, which showed that students who are gratified in their

use of technology are more likely to use that technology. If students are having better

achievement and enjoying the software, they are more likely to want to use it.

Recommendations

Blended learning has been shown to increase student engagement, student

achievement, and student perceptions of technology and of the material being taught, and it

can be implemented fairly easily. Even districts that are not 1:1 can use some aspects of
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 41

blended learning through the use of technology carts or computer labs. One of the easiest

places to start is to pick one aspect of the curriculum that would benefit from technology

access.

Implementing blended learning in schools.

Schools should begin implementing more blended learning in classrooms. One way to

ensure the success of blended learning is to ensure that all teachers are aware of the best

practices in implementing blended learning. When blended learning becomes too technology

based and lacks the appropriate amount of teacher interaction, students are less likely to be

engaged (de la Varre et al., 2011). At the same time, too little technology can lead to a lower

sense of engagement as well, since students are drawn to gamification and the use of

technology in the classroom (Light & Pierson, 2014). An appropriate balance must be struck

between technology use and teacher support and availability. Furthermore, the activities

chosen in a blended learning classroom must be considered. Certain activities lend

themselves to technology use more than others. Discussions with classmates are often better

face-to-face while technology can be used to interact and discuss with experts or people

unable to be in the room (Wendt, 2015). Students also respond best to technologies that they

find fun and aesthetically pleasing but that also allow them to have higher achievement

(Mondi et al., 2008). By considering what activities are best suited to technology use,

teachers can increase student engagement, achievement, and positive attitudes.

It is also important to consider the stakeholders involved when beginning a blended

learning program. If students, parents, teachers, and administrators are not all on board,

blended learning has a lower chance of success (Zaka, 2013). All of these people are affected

by the choice to move to blended learning, and they can either help or hinder the process. To
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 42

get teachers on board, it is important to have structured and useful professional development

opportunities that incorporate examples of successful blended learning. Teachers need time to

prepare to begin blended learning. If they rush too fast or try to use too many technologies at

once, it can cause negative results (Jacobs, 2014).

Administrators and parents also need to be on board and to see the research and

evidence that blended learning can be successful. Prior to implementing blended learning,

parent meetings need to be held so that they are aware of the reasons for change and the

evidence that change can be successful. These meetings can help sway parent perceptions to

be positive and optimistic about the change (Billingsley et al., 2009).

Finally, students need to be brought on board. They are directly affected by blended

learning, and it is vital that they be willing to work with the new technologies in order to

make them successful. This can be done through careful and thoughtful consideration of the

technologies being used and slow and progressive implementation of change. By moving

slowly, both teachers and students can adjust to the change and fine-tune what works best for

them both.

Future research on blended learning.

Future research still needs to be done on blended learning. Many of the studies out

there have a variety of flaws from small sample sizes to stretching the definition of blended

learning (Curwood & Cowell, 2011; de la Varre et al., 2011). More studies need to be

performed that have large sample sizes and an ability to create a relatively equal control and

treatment group. While this is not always perfectly feasible in a school setting, more can be

done so that the groups are at least even in numbers and pre-experiment abilities.
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 43

Furthermore, more research needs to be done in using specific types of blended

learning in different content areas. While some of these studies exist, more could be done to

help teachers make choices on what program to begin their implementation with depending

on their content area. Additionally, more studies need to be done at the elementary level.

There is a large gap in the research when it comes to blended learning and younger students.

Blended learning has the potential to increase student engagement, achievement, and

perceptions of learning and could begin to make America a powerhouse of education in the

world today.
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 44

References

Ahn, J., Beck, A., Rice, J., & Foster, M. (2016). Exploring issues of implementation, equity,

and student achievement with educational software in the DC public schools.

AERA Open, 2(4), 1-10.

Akgunduz, D., & Akinoglu, O. (2016). The effect of blended learning and social media-

supported learning on the students' attitude and self-directed learning skills in

science education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology -

TOJET, 15(2), 106-115.

Billingsley, G., Scheuermann, B., & Webber, J. (2009). A comparison of three

instructional methods for teaching math skills to secondary students with

emotional/behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35(1), 4-18.

Bottge, B. A., Ma, X., Gassaway, L., Toland, M. D., Butler, M., & Cho, S. (2014). Effects

of blended instructional models on math performance. Exceptional Children,

80(4), 423-437.

Camahalan, F. G., & Ruley, A. G. (2014). Blended learning and teaching writing: A

teacher action research project. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 15, 1-13. Capponi,

M. F., Nussbaum, M., Marshall, G., & Lagos, M. E. (2010). Pattern discovery for the

design of face-to-face computer-supported collaborative learning activities.

Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 40-52.

Chang, C., Shu, K., Liang, C., Tseng, J., & Hsu, Y. (2014). Is blended e-learning as

measured by an achievement test and self-assessment better than traditional

Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 45

classroom learning for vocational high school students?. International Review of

Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(2), 213-231.

Cheung, A., & Slavin, R.E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology

applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-

analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113.

Curwood, J. S., & Cowell, L. H. (2011). iPoetry: Creating space for new literacies in the

English curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(2), 110-120.

Daley, S. G., Hillaire, G., & Sutherland, L. M. (2016). Beyond performance data:

Improving student help seeking by collecting and displaying influential data in an

online middle-school science curriculum. British Journal of Educational Technology,

47(1), 121-134.

de la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. (2011). Enhancing online distance education in

small rural US schools: A hybrid, learner-centred model. Journal of Asynchronous

Learning Networks, 15(4), 35-46.

DeSilver, D. (2015). U.S. students improving - slowly - in math and science, but still lagging

internationally. Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 11, 2016, from

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improving-slowly-

inmath-and-science-but-still-lagging-internationally/

Garrison, D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative

potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education 7, 95–105.

Hall, T. E., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with

UDL and technology: Strategic reader. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 72-

83.
Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 46

Huang, Y., & Hong, Z. (2016). The effects of a flipped English classroom intervention

on students' information and communication technology and English reading

comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2),

175-193.

Jacobs, J. (2014). Beyond the factory model: Oakland teachers learn how to blend.

Education Next, 14(4), 34-41.

Kazu, I. Y., & Demirkol, M. (2014). Effect of blended learning environment model on

high school students' academic achievement. Turkish Online Journal of Educational

Technology - TOJET, 13(1), 78-87.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE:

Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 35(2), 24-32.

Leo, J., & Puzio, K. (2016). Flipped instruction in a high school science classroom.

Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(5), 775-781.

Light, D., & Pierson, E. (2014). Increasing student engagement in math: The use of Khan

Academy in Chilean classrooms. International Journal of Education and

Development Using Information And Communication Technology,10(2), 103-119.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and

blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College

Record, 115, 1-47.

Mondi, M., Woods, P., & Rafi, A. (2008). A "uses and gratification expectancy model"

to predict students' "perceived e-learning experience". Educational Technology &

Society, 11(2), 241-261.

Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 47

Najafi, H., Evans, R., & Federico, C. (2014). MOOC integration into secondary school

courses. International Review of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 15(5),

306-322.
Rotherham, A. & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st century skills: The challenges ahead.

Teaching for the 21st Century, 67, 16-21.

Siko, J. P. (2014). Testing the waters: An analysis of the student and parent experience

in a secondary school's first blended course offering. International Journal of

E-Learning & Distance Education, 29(2), 1-19.

Smith, J. G., & Smith, R. L. (2012). Screen-capture instructional technology: A

cognitive tool for designing a blended multimedia curriculum. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 207-228.

Smith, J. G., & Suzuki, S. (2015). Embedded blended learning within an algebra classroom:

A multimedia capture experiment. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 31(2), 133-147.

Snyder, C., Paska, L. M., & Besozzi, D. (2014). Cast from the past: Using screencasting

in the social studies classroom. Social Studies, 105(6), 310-314.

U.S. Department of Education (USED). (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in

online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.

Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

Wendt, J. L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2015). The effect of online collaboration on

adolescent sense of community in eighth-grade physical science. Journal of Science

Education and Technology, 24(5), 671-683.

Running head: EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING 48

Yapici, I., & Akbayin, H. (2012). The effect of blended learning model on high school

students' biology achievement and on their attitudes towards the Internet.

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 11(2), 228-237.

Zaka, P. (2013). A case study of blended teaching and learning in a New Zealand

secondary school, using an ecological framework. Journal of Open, Flexible

And Distance Learning, 17(1), 24-40.