Blended Learning literature review

1. LITERATURE REVIEW
Blended Learning
by Steve Aiken and Ruth Thomas
Word Count: 3100
Background
The term blended learning has been appearing in research literature since the late 1990s (Friesen,
2012) however its definition and pedagogical implications have become more defined in recent
literature. Much of the recent research around blended learning in schools has been carried out by
Michael Horn and Heather Staker of the Clayton Christensen Institute, which describes itself as “a
nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank dedicated to improving the world through disruptive innovation”
(“About Us,” 2015). Michael Horn is the executive director of the education programme, leading a
team focused on disruptive innovation in education (“Michael B. Horn,” 2015). Heather Staker is a
Senior Research Fellow at the institute and is considered to be “one of the world’s foremost
experts on K­12 blended learning” (“Heather Staker,” 2015, para. 1).
There is no research into blended learning at primary school level in New Zealand and limited
research available into blended learning at elementary level in American Schools. The literature
shows that many of the schools implementing blended learning models in America are using
software or programmes statewide that are state or government funded.
Purpose
Due to a strong personal interest in the concept of blended learning and a desire to explore
whether it would be successful in our learning context, this literature review was undertaken to
establish; what blended learning is, the benefits and drawbacks of implementing blended learning
and the implications for our learning environment. This literature review seeks to fully apprise us of
the latest developments with respect to modern research on blended learning at the K­12 school
level and in doing so form a platform from which we could then look at how blended learning could
be implemented in a New Zealand primary school context to enhance student learning.
Definitions of Blended Learning
The literature around blended learning shows that the term is used widely, but often incorrectly. A
common confusion is referring to technology rich instruction as blended learning (Groff, 2013; Horn

2. & Staker, 2014; Staker, 2011). Two common ideas emerge among the differing definitions of
blended learning. Blended learning involves some element of learning in a building away from
home with some face­to­face learning time with a teacher or tutor and it also involves some online
learning where the pace and direction can be set and adjusted by the students leading to
personalised learning experiences (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Horn & Staker, 2014; Staker,
2011). Some literature also refers to a third element of blended learning being an integrated
experience where connections are made between what is being delivered face­to­face and what is
being learnt online (Horn & Staker, 2014; “What is blended learning?” 2015). Essentially, blended
learning combines some form of traditional learning with some form of self directed online learning.
This allows students access to teachers when they need face­to­face instruction with opportunities
to learn online at their own pace when this suits them (Watson, 2015).
Models of Blended Learning
In 2011, six models were generally accepted as defining the terrain of K­12 blended learning
environment (Horn & Staker, 2011, p.5). However this was later refined to four models through
redefining their parameters. These four models are consistently discussed and referred to in recent
literature in relation to K­12 education ­ the Rotation model, the Flex model, the A La Carte model
and the Enriched­Virtual model (Christensen, Horn & Staker, 2013). These four models link back to
the research of Michael Horn and Heather Staker around blended learning, first appearing in their
2012 article ​Classifying K­12 Blended Learning​ (p. 8). All four models have broad parameters due
to blended learning still being in the early stages of development and schools experimenting with
different blends to find what works best for them and their students (Horn & Staker, 2014).
In the Rotation model, students rotate following a set timetable, or at the teacher’s discretion,
between subjects or learning modes, with at least one of these modes being online learning. Other
modes include more traditional teaching methods, such as whole class and group instruction,
paper based activities or group projects (Staker & Horn, 2012). One of the key features of this
model is that either the teacher or the clock signals that it is time to move to the next activity and
everyone moves at the same time (Horn & Staker, 2014). The Flex model is when course content
and instruction is delivered online, with students moving on an individualised, fluid schedule
amongst subjects and learning modes with the teacher available onsite to provide face­to­face
support as needed (Staker & Horn, 2012). The key feature of this model is that online learning is
the predominant style of learning with students being directed to offline learning at times (Horn &
Staker, 2014). In the Self­Blend model (later renamed the A La Carte model), students self­blend
their learning, taking some courses fully online and other courses face­to­face with teachers at
physical campuses (Staker & Horn, 2012). This model is more common at high school level, where
students often choose to take online courses in addition to regular face­to­face classes (Horn &
Staker, 2014). The Enriched­Virtual model allows students to split their time between attending a
physical campus and learning online remotely (Staker & Horn, 2012). Students attend face­to­face
learning sessions at set times then work independently online, either on campus or at home (Horn
& Staker, 2014).
Two of these models have the greatest potential to be implemented in the New Zealand primary
school environment ­ the Rotation model, which includes the flipped learning model, and the Flex
model. New Zealand teachers are already experimenting with the flipped learning model at both
primary at secondary school levels; elements of the Rotation model are often used in New Zealand

3. classrooms to make effective use of the limited internet capable devices available, although the
level of choice for students might not yet be available; the Flex model is already being used in
some schools, particularly those schools with open plan modern learning environments where
students have greater choice in what they learn when. Online adaptive software is not yet common
in New Zealand and with limited school budgets and the responsibility falling back on schools or
parents to pay for these, opportunities will be limited for students to access adaptive online
learning opportunities.
Many schools mix and match elements of models, combining approaches to find a workable model
for themselves. Some schools “operate several models and combinations of models at the same
time to serve different populations of students in different subjects under the same roof” (Horn &
Staker, 2014, p. 52).
Benefits and Drawbacks of Blended Learning
One of the common themes that emerges out of recent literature is the idea of blended learning
leading to improved pedagogical teaching practices. One reason for this is that knowledge can be
acquired through online learning, freeing up face­to­face time with the teacher and group learning
opportunities for the application of learning, leading to deeper engagement with learning (Horn &
Staker, 2014; Watson, 2015). This is also supported by Kaur (2013) who states that blended
learning “represents a switch from passive learning to active learning” (p. 616). Blended learning
allows teachers to redesign their classroom practice, shifting from more traditional teaching
methods to more interactive and learner centred methods, allowing teachers to use their time more
efficiently and effectively.
One clear benefit identified by Staker & Horn (2012), is that learning is no longer restricted in terms
of time, place, path or pace. Students are free to learn at their own pace following the pathway that
suits them best, and they are no longer constrained by the physical school buildings or timetable,
leading to ubiquitous learning opportunities. Their learning becomes highly personalised, leading to
greater success for students (Horn & Staker, 2011; Murphy et al., 2014; Watson, 2015). Not only is
the online learning personalised, face­to­face learning can also be personalised and become more
responsive to students needs as the teacher is more available to meet with small groups of
students as needed, meeting more often with those students requiring extra support.
Research shows that blended learning also has benefits in terms of the development of students
key competencies such as developing self­reliance as they work through tasks independently,
developing time management skills as they are able to adjust their learning schedule to suit their
own pace, becoming more responsible for their own learning and developing self­discipline
(Harding, Kaczynski & Wood, 2005; Murphy et al., 2014). However, “teachers reported that
students’ readiness for self­directed learning may vary by their academic preparation” and they felt
that “a student's ability to self­manage and self­direct their learning determined which children
would most likely thrive in a blended learning model” (Murphy et al., 2014, p. 7­8). A lack of digital
literacy skills could also be a barrier to student success (Murphy et al., 2014, p. 25). Therefore,
although blended learning offers students opportunities to develop skills in key competencies, they
might not be ready to utilise these opportunities.
Compared to purely online learning, blended learning contains a beneficial social element

4. that is noted to build a learning community and create greater student satisfaction.
One of the principal benefits of blended learning is providing a sense of community amongst
learners (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Although this is a reference from a higher education
standpoint, its importance can be extrapolated to a primary school context where socialisation,
collaboration and belonging are of high level importance to the students learning experience.
Similarly, Sethy (2008) notes by adding the human interaction to online learning, the educators
have considered the human need for socialisation which in turn will help the process of learning.
Sugata Mitra who developed the model of self organising learning environments (SOLEs)
eventually experimented with adding an elderly person to mix of 3 students. This was solely for the
purpose of them offering encouragement or appearing impressed at what the students were doing.
This social element created a significant lift in the engagement and achievement of the students
(Mitra, 2013).
Horn and Staker (2014) also warn of the risks of getting blended learning wrong. They warn of the
potential for opportunities to be missed and large sums of money wasted due to “leaders not
attempting to organize strategically before attempting to blend” (p. 130). They have also identified
a commonly made mistake: “asking classroom teachers to use technology to personalize learning
and then expecting them to create a truly transformative learning model on their own” (p. 130).
They suggest that carefully chosen leaders drive the implementation of blended learning forward,
protecting the disruptive nature of such a shift and ensuring funding and support goes where it is
needed for such a shift to be successful (Horn & Staker, 2014, p. 131). This is backed up by the
findings of Murphy et al. (2014) who surmised that “Blended learning coordinators played an
important role in supporting schools’ adoption of blended learning” (p. 23). It is interesting to note
that these leaders were not necessarily classroom teachers but coordinators who researched
things like possible online programmes to use, arranging teacher training and negotiating with
providers and vendors (p. 23).
Implications for our learning environments
Horn & Staker (2014) have identified some key questions to help guide schools when making a
decision about which model or models to implement. “What problem are you trying to solve? What
type of team do you need to solve the problem? What do you want students to control? What do
you want the primary role of the teacher to be? What physical space can you use? How many
internet enabled devices are available?” (p.240). They suggest taking an existing blended learning
model and adapting it to suit, based on the needs of the school, then reworking and refining the
model to find the right blend.
Research also suggests that having the right school culture is important for blended learning to be
successful (Horn & Staker, 2014; Watson, 2015; Murphy et al., 2014). Students need to see the
value of self­directed learning and engage in this process for it to be successful. Teachers need to
make the shift from teacher in charge to facilitator of learning, differentiating instruction to target
students needs. Parents need to be made aware of the value that blended learning can add to
learning for their children.
Careful consideration needs to be given to equipping students with the independent learning skills
required to be successful in a self­directed blended learning environment (Murphy et al., 2014;
Horn & Staker, 2011). “Both teachers and students alike need to learn how to develop new habits

5. of mind, a growth mindset, and to understand what it takes to be successful in a student­centered,
personalized learning environment in which their roles are evolving” (Watson, 2014, p. 16).
Students need to be supported to develop the self management skills necessary to be successful
in a blended learning environment.
The taxonomy of blended learning models is still imperfect and will continue to evolve along with
the field. But for now it offers a starting point for differentiating between sustaining and disruptive
models of blended learning (Christensen, Horn & Staker, 2013). Classifying a model in terms of
whether it is a disruptive or hybrid innovation may give us an insight into how the adoption of this
model will play out in a given environment. The white paper “Is K­12 Blended learning Disruptive?”
(Christensen, Horn & Staker, 2013) looks at disruptive innovations that have historically completely
transformed industries and sectors. It then attempts to compare these innovations with the blended
learning models to determine which of these are disruptive or hybrid innovations. The conclusion is
the Station Rotation, Lab Rotation and Flipped Classroom models are following the pattern of
sustaining hybrid innovations. They incorporate the main features of both the traditional classroom
and online learning. The Flex, A La Carte, Enriched Virtual and Individual Rotation models, in
contrast, are developing more disruptively relative to the traditional system (Christensen, Horn &
Staker, 2013)​.
Having now classified these models, an analysis of the K­12 environment with respect to the
adoption of disruptive or hybrid educational innovation now allows Christensen, Horn and Staker
(2013) to propose how the future will play out. They foresee that the disruptive models of blended
learning will replace the classroom as we know it in high schools and, to some extent, middle
schools, but not necessarily in elementary schools. They go on to say “the future of elementary
schools at this point is likely to be largely, but not exclusively, a sustaining innovation story for the
classroom” (p. 35). They base this on the observation that “although many areas of
nonconsumption exist at the classroom level, little nonconsumption exists at the school level in
U.S. K−12 education. Almost every student has access to a government­funded school of some
sort” (p. 27). This access to schooling is parallelled here in NZ education and therefore we can
surmise that similarly there will be a lack of nonconsumers to champion the fully disruptive models
and the hybrid models of blended learning will be predicted to dominate. Noncomsumers are the
people who have no alternative to the new innovation, it’s either that or nothing so to speak. They
usually exist on the fringe and in this scenario, would be learners in remote areas, students who
have dropped out of formal education, home schooled students and the like. The amount of these
people in New Zealand would be so small as to have very little impact on driving a totally disruptive
blended learning model forward in primary schooling.
Community engagement reflecting Kaupapa Maori and Te Noho Kotahitanga
When compared with Te Kotahitanga, a research and professional development programme that
identifies the barriers to educational achievement of Māori and proposes classroom solutions
(“Māori learners,” 2015, para. 1), many elements of blended learning fit well with the findings and
suggested solutions. Māori students learn best when power is shared and students have some
control over their learning, learning is interactive and integrated and there is a shared vision
working towards excellence (“Māori learners,” 2015).

6. Blended learning offers students the ability to have more determination over their own learning and
therefore plays out well for Māori and the principle of Tino Rangatiratanga, which relates to
self­determination, independence and control of their own destiny (“Principles of Kaupapa Māori,”
2015). In terms of the principle of Taonga Tuku, which relates to cultural aspirations and “the
centrality and legitimacy of Te Reo Māori, Tīkanga and Mātauranga Māori” (“Principles of Kaupapa
Māori,” 2015, para. 3), blended learning also offers some solutions. It creates the ability for
students to engage with Te Reo in institutions that do not have fluent Māori language speakers.
Using online sources teachers and students can can venture into Te Reo together and share the
experience. Pedagogy that is uniquely Māori and learning styles prefered by Māori can be
incorporated by teachers who do not have expertise in this field by blending appropriate online
sources into the learning experience. Blending online sources also offer Māori access to rich
content in remote or economically deprived areas. Students can revisit learning without
impediments such as distance, access restricted by finance or peer pressures to not stand out.
Blended learning also creates another space in which Māori can connect and build positive
learning relationships with Māori. It allows learning communities to form from a uniquely Māori
perspective supporting the Hauora of individuals and the group which shares a common purpose
and aspirations.
Conclusion
Therefore with respect to this reviews focus on how blended learning could be implemented in a
New Zealand primary school context to enhance student learning, we would be influenced to pay
more attention to investigating the hybrid models as those that will gain a stronger foot hold initially
in this sector and “offer a “best­of­both­worlds” solution corresponding to the needs of the existing
elementary school system” (Christensen, Horn and Staker, 2013). This hybrid domination is noted
to be at a school or district level whereas within individual classrooms an engagement with any
model is not out of the question. A mix and match of elements to find the best tailored solution for
the students is likely to be trialled by teachers, be that from hybrid or disruptive models, as noted
previously (Horn & Staker, 2014, p. 52). Now that a consistent definition of what blended learning
is and what it looks like has been established, further local research into blended learning and the
effects it has on students learning would be beneficial, especially at the primary school level.
Consideration also needs to be given to the bicultural and inclusive nature of New Zealand
education and the impacts blended learning can have on enhancing learning opportunities for all
students in our classrooms.

7. References
About Us. (2015). Retrieved from ​http://www.christenseninstitute.org/our­mission/
Christensen, C., Horn, M. & Staker, H. (2013). ​Is K­12 Blended Learning Disruptive? An
introduction of the theory of hybrids.​ Retrieved from
​http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp­content/uploads/2013/05/Is­K­12­Blended­Learning­Disruptive.pdf
Friesen, N. (2012). Report: Defining Blended Learning. Retrieved from
​http://learningspaces.org/papers/Defining_Blended_Learning_NF.pdf
Garrison, D. R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). ​Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher
education.​ Internet and Higher Education 7.2, 95–105. Retrieved from
​http://cecs.anu.edu.au/files/flu_presentation/blended_learning/data/resources/Garrison_2004_The­
​Internet­and­Higher­Education.pdf
Garrison, D. R. & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). ​Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles and
Guidelines​. (1st ed.). San Francisco: CA: Jossey​­Bass.
Groff, J. (2013). ​Technology­rich innovative learning environments​. Innovative Learning Environments, 1­30.
Retrieved from
​http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/Technology­Rich%20Innovative%20Learning%20Environments%20by%20
​Jennifer%20Groff.pdf
Harding, A., Kaczynski, D. & Wood, L. (2005). ​Evaluation of blended learning: analysis of qualitative data​.
UniServe Science Blended Learning Symposium Proceedings, 56­62. Retrieved from
​http://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/IISME/article/viewFile/6436/7085
Heather Staker. (2015). Retrieved from ​http://www.christenseninstitute.org/our­team/heather­staker/
Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2014). ​blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools​ (1st ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2011). The Rise of K­12 Blended Learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from
​http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp­content/uploads/2013/04/The­rise­of­K­12­blended­learning.pdf
Kaur, M. (2013). Blended Learning ­ Its Challenges and Future. ​Procedia ­ Social and Behavioral Sciences,
93, 612­617. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.248
Māori learners. (2015) Retrieved from
​http://tekotahitanga.tki.org.nz/About/Professional­Development/Maori­learners
Michael B. Horn. (2015). Retrieved from ​http://www.christenseninstitute.org/our­team/michael­b­horn/
Mitra, S. (2013, February). Build a School in the Cloud [Video]. Retrieved from
​https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud
Murphy, R., Snow, E., Mislevy, J., Gallagher, L., Krumm, A. & Wei, X. (2014). ​Blended Learning Report​.
Michael & Susan Dell Foundation. Retrieved from
​http://5a03f68e230384a218e0­938ec019df699e606c950a5614b999bd.r33.cf2.rackcdn.com/MSDF­
​Blended­Learning­Report­May­2014.pdf
Principles of Kaupapa Māori. (2015). Retrieved from ​http://www.rangahau.co.nz/research­idea/27/

8.
Sethy, S. (2008). Distance Education in the Age of globalisation: An Overwhelming Desire towards Blended
Learning. Turkish online journal of Distance education, 9 (3).
Staker, H. and Horn, M. (2012). ​Classifying K­12 Blended Learning​. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from
​http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535180.pdf
Watson, J. (2015). ​Blending learning: The convergence of online and face­to­face education​. Retrieved from
​http://www.inacol.org/resource/blending­learning­the­evolution­of­online­and­face­to­face­education­from­
​2008­2015/
What is blended learning? (2015). Retrieved from ​http://www.christenseninstitute.org/blended­learning/