Blended Learning: Balancing the Best of Both Worlds for Adult Learners

Abstract

Blended, or hybrid, courses have often been touted as the ideal way to facilitate learning as they allow learners to interact in both face-to-face and online settings, thereby experiencing the “best of both worlds.” In practice, that ideal learning setting is more difficult to achieve. While blended courses have the potential to integrate the most beneficial aspects of each modality, such course design requires diligence to successfully navigate a balance and ensure the optimal delivery mode is considered for each learning scenario. In this article, the authors share the most current research on blended learning for adults, including benefits and drawbacks, various blended models, the results of an empirical study comparing two blended designs, and conclude with a practitioner tool to guide decision-making and achieve the appropriate balance of online and face-to-face and ultimately realize the best of both worlds for adult learners.

Keywords

blended learning hybrid learning instructional design course design best practices

“There is no single or optimal ‘recipe’ for the correct blend of faceto-face and online elements.”

Blended courses combine online and face-to-face modalities, arguably allowing adult learners to experience the “best of both worlds” in an ideal learning setting. The blended format has been touted as the ideal structure because the advantages of both modalities can be utilized, including direct contact, real-time interaction, time for conscious reflection on discussion responses, and the ability to share resources, which reflect foundational adult learning principles, such as andragogy and self-directed learning (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). In practice, that ideal learning format is more difficult to achieve. For example, it may be that by using two delivery modes, both are diluted and neither utilized fully, ultimately resulting in inferior learning outcomes rather than integrating the most beneficial aspects of each modality.

Diligent design is required to successfully navigate the balance of online and face-to-face interaction and ensure the optimal mode is considered for each learning scenario (Collins & Zacharakis, 2010; Zimmerman, 2019), thereby creating a successful blended course for all adult learners. To do so, we must navigate the myriad of different versions, as blended courses exist in almost infinite variation and nomenclature, such as hybrid, the flipped classroom, intensive learning, the replacement model and more. Given this diversity of design for adults, Deschacht and Goeman (2015) called for “a greater understanding of how adult learners can make the most of a blended learning format” (p. 88).

Adult learners are the majority in distance education (Ke & Xie, 2009); it follows that a majority of distance instructors are adult education practitioners. Generally, traditional adult learning theories such as andragogy are applicable to blended learning (BL; Youde, 2018). Andragogy applied to BL centers adult learners’ self-directedness, readiness to learn, and internal motivations (Merriam & Bierema, 2014; Youde, 2018). Adults desire autonomy in what and how they wish to learn, thereby requiring the flexibility that BL can provide. Instructors must understand and apply these fundamentals of adult learning as they design courses for this majority distance learning population.

Here, our purpose is to explore and present decision criteria necessary for instructors of adults to make informed decisions about BL design. In the literature review, we separate advantages and best practices for adult learners from what may be untested and anecdotal evidence and present various BL formats and gaps in the literature. We then present results of a study of two blended designs utilized by the authors to facilitate adult learning, including approaches to divide course content, student learning objectives, and comparisons of experiences between online and face-to-face. We conclude with a decision-making matrix for adult education practitioners.

Blended Learning Overview

BL first emerged around 20 years ago and is defined as a combination of face-to-face and computer-mediated (or online) instruction (Vo et al., 2017). While the definition is straightforward, in practice BL takes many forms with differences in time dedicated to each modality, expectations of face-to-face or online interaction, and other variables depending on the organization, learning outcomes, and learners.

Generally speaking, BL has been viewed as an alternative to exclusively online or face-to-face learning, and often results in positive learner impacts (Deschacht & Goeman, 2015; Nollenberger, 2017). A well-designed BL course allows students to experience the benefits of both face-to-face and online instruction and uses each modality for its strengths (Baragash & Al-Samarraie, 2018; Hall & Villareal, 2015; Klotz & Wright, 2017). For the online portion, benefits may include introducing and reinforcing content, providing resources and information, providing flexibility and convenience, allowing time for reflection and preparation for face-to-face classes, feedback through online assessments and peer reviews, and deepened content understanding through projects and discussions. Face-to-face sessions are most useful for immediate clarification and feedback, discussions and group activities, answering questions about content covered (or that will be covered) online, obtaining a more complete understanding of content, and sharing personal experiences and interactions (Cundell & Sheepy, 2018; Hall & Villareal, 2015). BL may provide a positive environment for student engagement and performance, but only if there is a solid understanding of how each delivery mode can promote effective learning (Baragash & Al-Samarraie, 2018).

Blended Learning for Adults

Evidence indicates BL improves adult learning outcomes. Deschacht and Goeman (2015) found BL improved adults’ exam scores and course pass rates and (Ge, 2012) identified better English language acquisition among Chinese adults utilizing a blended approach. BL also presents the opportunity to accommodate heterogeneous groups of adult learners, particularly with those differing levels of self-regulation (Vanslambrouck et al., 2019) or who seek varying levels of social inclusion and social capital (Cocquyt et al., 2017). BL can meet diverse learner needs by accommodating differing learning styles (Garcia et al., 2014) and through the variety of activities available by using both modalities (Hall & Villareal, 2015; Lai et al., 2016; Snowball, 2014). BL has been applied in many adult learning contexts, including nursing (e.g., Johansen et al., 2012), teacher professional development (e.g., Caudle, 2013; Frerichs et al., 2018), language learning (e.g., Ge, 2012), workplace learning (e.g., Kim et al., 2008), and adult basic education (e.g., Li et al., 2018).

Students often prefer BL over exclusively online or face-to-face classes due to flexibility, without sacrificing face-to-face interaction (Bower et al., 2015; Cundell & Sheepy, 2018; Garcia et al., 2014; Hall & Villareal, 2015), particularly important for adult learners with many competing responsibilities. Bower et al. (2015) also found students who usually participated in fully face-to-face classes benefited from the variety of perspectives present in a BL class. Garcia et al. (2014) noted that students appreciated faculty involvement and feedback and the combination of differing forms of feedback, from both face-to-face and online interactions. In a student satisfaction survey, 95% of participants said they would choose a BL model over either a solely face-to-face or online model (Garcia et al., 2014).

While students often prefer BL, the course outcomes between BL, fully face-to-face, and fully online courses are often the same or very close (Marquis & Ghosh, 2017; University of Central Florida, n.d.). Bower et al. (2015) found learners believed they learned more in a BL class than a face-to-face class but that the sense of community was the same in both. Castaño-Muñoz et al. (2014) reported BL can be more effective than face-to-face, but only when interactive learning is also included in the BL course. Other studies (e.g., Hahs-Vaughn et al., 2017; Lim et al., 2019) showed students perform comparably in a BL course and a fully online course.

Of course, BL is not a panacea to address all adult teaching and learning needs. Bower et al. (2015) noted BL increases the cognitive load for students, regarding both content and technology requirements. Students’ ability to succeed under this load needs to be carefully considered. Butz and Stupinsky (2016) found lower levels of relatedness in BL settings, and students who primarily interacted face-to-face or online related better to those in their same modality. While it may be unclear whether one modality results in better learning outcomes than another, it seems reasonable to assume that all modalities can have a significant and positive impact on students, if properly planned and facilitated.

Considerations for Designing Blended Learning Courses

Although BL’s benefits are well documented in the literature, simply offering a BL course is not enough to ensure success. Many components require careful consideration and planning to effectively achieve course outcomes and meet learner needs. Learning should be purposefully interactive, with balance between face-to-face and online activities, and the best practices for both face-to-face and online learning still need to be employed, including knowing when and why to use each modality. BL can be the “best of both worlds,” but only if the advantages of face-to-face and online learning are understood and utilized to fit the context, content, and learners. There is no single or optimal “recipe” for the correct blend of face-to-face and online elements. Pilcher (2017) offered this succinct but helpful list of eight characteristics of successfully blended courses. Blended courses (a) demand active learning, (b) support numerous pedagogical approaches, (c) create time, (d) encourage self-directed learning, (e) give every student a voice, (f) maximize the value of face-to-face time, (g) help students organize their knowledge, and (h) layer coursework.

Designing for interactive learning

One of the key considerations for a successful BL course is ensuring learning is interactive (Bower et al., 2015; Hinshaw & Gumus, 2013; Klotz & Wright, 2017; Lai et al., 2016). Hall and Villareal (2015) specified that interactive classes include multiple ways of learning, discussions, and collaboration, both in the face-to-face and online components. Snowball (2014) emphasized the importance of interactive learning opportunities online to encourage a larger impact on student performance. In addition, Castaño-Muñoz et al. (2014) asserted the amount of time spent online does not matter as much as if that time is spent interactively in order to increase course effectiveness. Finally, Cundell and Sheepy (2018) summarized the importance of interactive learning in BL by noting that “in online and blended learning environments, a key determinant of effectiveness is the ability of the online environment to engage the learner” (p. 87).

Balancing face-to-face and online activities

A second key consideration for designing and facilitating a successful BL course is the proper balance of number, type, and duration of face-to-face and online activities (Vanslambrouck et al., 2018). Garcia et al. (2014) argued the challenge of BL is choosing effective face-to-face and online learning strategies without detracting from either approach. They suggested instructors consider how to sustain discussions and projects begun in a classroom in the online format to create continuity between the two modalities. Hall and Villareal (2015) cautioned there is not a single balance between the two modalities; instructors need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each, student support options, the purposeful placement of activities, and the connections between classes to have a successful BL course. Klotz and Wright (2017) recommended content should be delivered online if delivering it face-to-face results in any of the following outcomes: (a) students are passive participants, (b) there is minimal student interaction, (c) delivery can be effectively replicated online, or (d) an intense schedule makes it difficult for students to absorb information and for instructors to effectively deliver material. Finally, Bower et al. (2015) suggested instructors need to carefully consider using appropriate technologies to meet communicative requirements (which may vary between face-to-face and online modalities) and the varying degrees of co-presence needed.

Although BL may be seen as its own type of course delivery system, it is simply the integration of face-to-face and online teaching. Thus, well-established and documented best practices for adult learning in each modality still apply when planning and teaching in a BL setting, but are beyond the scope of this article.

Support for a Blending Learning Decision Matrix

The major issue remaining for BL courses is ensuring the right blend of face-to-face and online time and activities designed to achieve optimum learning outcomes and meet learner needs (Torrisi-Steele & Drew, 2013). “There is a dire need for academic development and support that promotes understanding as well as the implementation of transformative blended learning” (Torrisi-Steele & Drew, 2013, p. 380). A comprehensive survey of 827 articles uncovered a “severe deficiency of blended literature describing research into current academic practices” (p. 380). There are many learner-focused studies in BL literature, but few contribute to improving the instructional practice needed to formulate strategies for effectively teaching with BL. We begin to address this shortfall by offering a tool, presented later, to help instructors and designers consider their context, content, and learners and make appropriate decisions for successful BL experiences.

Approaches to Blended Learning

Certainly, BL exists in almost infinite variation and customization; a quick internet search leads to any number of BL approaches and nomenclature. Here, we present BL models and approaches to designing BL that are linked to higher education but not necessarily well represented in the literature or supported with empirical research. We present these models as a means of illuminating the spectrum of detail available to practitioners. With the exception of the flipped classroom which is a popular model and moderately supported in the literature, the formats presented in Table 1 have very little explication available but are included to help adult education practitioners generate ideas on how the time available for face-to-face and online activities can be divided.

Table 1.

Selected Blended Learning Approaches

Approach	Distinguishing feature(s)	Balance
Flipped classroom	Complementary design in which the structure of a traditional classroom is reversed. Lectures and presentations are completed online and homework-like assignments are approached in the classroom with instructor assistance.	Equal
Replacement model	Replaces in-class time with online. Balanced approach that leverages the best uses of F2F and online.	Equal
Blended face-to face (F2F)	Online activities supplement traditional F2F activities. F2F time focuses on higher order learning experiences.	Majority F2F
Blended online	Inverse of Blended F2F. Some F2F time is required for hands-on or interactive components.	Majority online
Intensive learning	Predominantly independent online with a few full-day or weekend meetings.	Majority online
Blended MOOC	Access content via publicly available massive open online courses (MOOCs). Meet F2F for additional activities.	Majority online
Self-blend model	Program level blend of online and F2F by course.	Student driven

Kerres and De Witt’s (2003) conceptual framework, the 3-C model, details how to select and sequence elements within a learning context. Its three components can be weighted differently depending on the situation: Content, the available learning materials, Communication, interpersonal exchanges among learners and instructors, and Construction, individual and cooperative learning activities and assignments. Kerres and De Witt offered guidelines for balancing these three components, as shown in Figure 1, which can be delivered in various formats and weighted differently. This framework is presented as a first step in facilitating a blended course. Instructors should begin with goals and objectives to ensure the appropriate didactical components are included, the how and when of using them then follow. The types of e-learning tools and the amount of face-to-face interaction rely on factors such as access, costs, and time.

Figure 1.

The 3-C model and considerations for each component.

As adult education practitioners, we aspire to design blended courses that account for the characteristics of adult learners and align with best practices in online and face-to-face delivery. To attempt to determine the most beneficial design in our own program, we conducted a small study of our adult learners.

Comparative Study

To address the numerous open issues around blended course design, the faculty in the adult education program at Colorado State University completed a two-phase study. The study’s purpose was to investigate the effectiveness of BL and the best way(s) to deliver it for their adult learners. Two varying replacement model approaches were implemented during the 2017–2018 academic year; students were then surveyed regarding their experiences with the two formats.

Blended Course Designs

The project consisted of two different applications of the replacement model, one during the fall of 2017 and the other in the spring of 2018. The fall model consisted of weekly abbreviated face-to-face class time combined with asynchronous online engagement. The spring model utilized a “Hopscotch” schedule, in which extended face-to-face class time alternated weekly with fully asynchronous online interaction. Both formats consisted of equal portions of class dedicated to online and face-to-face instruction over a 16-week period.

Participants

Study participants were adult graduate students in an on-campus program and enrolled in classes offered in the blended format. All students who participated in either format were recruited to participate, without exclusion. Of the 20 students participating in blended classes in the fall 2017 semester, 17 consented. Of the nine enrolled students in the spring of 2018, three consented to participate. Two students were enrolled in the blended classes in both the fall and spring semesters and participated in the study in both semesters, resulting in a total of 18 study participants.

Data Collection

Study participants were invited to complete a survey about their experiences in the program’s BL courses. The survey questions concerned the elements of blended delivery for each mode (online and face-to-face) including flexibility, workload, and student and instructor responsibilities. They also included general open-ended questions regarding the blended format, for example, “What aspects of the [face-to-face meetings/online interactions] have helped you to be successful in the hybrid environment?” Finally, students were asked to rank order various elements of the blended model:

Initial face-to-face meeting to meet peers

Frequent face-to-face engagement

Frequent online engagement

Intensive online time for reflection and developing content knowledge

Intensive face-to-face time for reflection and developing content knowledge

Introduce content online, then engage with content face-to-face

Introduce content face-to-face, then engage with content online

The two students who experienced both blended formats were also invited to participate in a focus group, in which they provided feedback regarding the benefits and drawbacks to each model, and which they preferred and why. They were also instructed on a variety of blended models and questioned regarding various aspects of the models. Again, there were open-ended questions such as, “How would you structure hybrid courses?”

Results

Regarding the replacement model from Phase 1 consisting of abbreviated time both online and face-to-face each week, 79% of students considered participating in an initial face-to-face meeting as significant to their BL experience, ranking it as a top three element. Frequent face-to-face engagement was also ranked in the top three by 64% of students. Regarding elements students did not value, frequent online engagement was ranked in the bottom three elements by 50% of students; 86% of students ranked the need for intensive online time in the bottom three.

In spring 2018, using the Hopscotch schedule, an initial face-to-face meeting was highlighted by 100% of students as the most important element in BL while frequent online instruction was ranked in the bottom three by 67% of students. In response to the open-ended questions, students emphasized flexibility, which is unsurprising given adult learners’ multiple competing responsibilities and BL’s association with flexibility.

Beyond the need for flexibility, there was minimal agreement from students regarding how best to structure BL and which of the two implemented formats was most beneficial. Regarding the benefits of the online portion, students highlighted the flexibility, the opportunity for more reserved students to engage, and ample reflection time. One student commented, “I work long hours, so coming to class interrupts how work goes. I think being online gives me the flexibility to learn any time of the day.” Another stated, “the online format allows for quiet or reserved folks to articulate their thoughts in a setting that may be more comfortable.”

Regarding the face-to-face portion of the design, students focused on opportunities to network, build relationships, and collaborate. One student shared, “I like the face to face connection with the instructor and classmates as it helps me to feel more comfortable and engaged.” Students also valued the combination of the two modalities, explaining, “I like how we are able to do work on our own online and then regroup to discuss and collaborate.”

Discussion

Results indicate neither format was the best blended model. Rather, various teaching and learning experiences lend themselves to either the online or face-to-face delivery mode and are determined by a variety of factors (e.g., content, engagement level, collaboration, and timing). In addition, learner preferences are a key determining factor in how a BL course is measured, as well as what should be delivered online versus face-to-face. The complexity of the course design process, as supported by these results, calls for a tool instructors can use to help decide how to design their course offerings, and choose the right balance and structure for their content, context, and adult learners.

Content, Context, Learners, and Modality: Tools for Decision-Making

Course design has been an instructional challenge for decades; there are always many decisions to make. The newer element is our opportunity to incorporate online components. We have always considered learners, context, and course content—as we move forward we must also consider modality. Our decision-making matrix, Table 2, can help adult educators realize the “best of both worlds” in their BL offerings by addressing a series of questions. Based on the answers, the matrix illustrates when and how to use face-to-face and online modalities for the most effective BL.

Table 2.

Decision-Making Matrix.

Factor	Key question	If yes, then . . .
Content
	Is content mastery a goal of the course?	Support online and F2F, with meaningful assessment.
	Is content engagement a goal (i.e., introduction, reinforcement)?	Primarily utilize online activities and discussions.
	Do learners need additional and/or immediate explanation of content, or do they have questions about online content?	Use F2F time to explain and discuss.
	Do learners need additional or in depth resources and information?	Make these resources available online.
	Would learners benefit from understanding basic concepts before engaging with the content?	Provide readings, lectures, videos, etc., to students before F2F meetings.
	Could learners benefit from peer reviews of their work?	Use peer review functions online to allow time and depth of feedback.
	Is the content intensive or requires a deeper understanding?	Allow time online for learners to engage with content and F2F time for questions and discussion.
	Is little or no discussion needed to engage with and understand content?	Provide content, resources, and assessments primarily online.
Context
	Do learners need frequent or synchronous communication?	Use F2F and/or synchronous online methods; supplement with online supports.
	Is group work a requirement?	Group work can function F2F or online; give groups F2F time to interact and plan.
	Is it acceptable for learners to be passive participants in the course?	Rely on online structures for passive requirements such as watching videos.
	Are interactive tasks technology-mediated?	Leverage LMS capabilities.
	Do students need independent time to practice tasks?	Use asynchronous assignments or leverage LMS capabilities.
	Is immediate feedback important?	Provide feedback F2F through discussion or individual interactions.
	Do learners need extended time to engage with discussions and projects?	Continue work started F2F online.
Learners
	Do learners have particularly busy or inflexible schedules?	Create flexibility with asynchronous online components.
	Are learners technologically skilled?	Group work can function F2F or online; give groups F2F time to interact and plan.
	Is relationship-building and/or personal revelations a goal(s) of the course?	Leverage F2F time.
	Do learners need time to reflect upon and organize content and ideas?	Utilize online journaling and reflection tools.
	Are learners overly passive in discussions?	Require and track participation online.
	Are learners self-directed in their acquisition of course content?	Make content available online.

Note. F2F = face-to-face; LMS = Learning Management System.

Conclusion

As with other adult teaching and learning scenarios, BL requires intentional consideration for learners’ needs. Given the myriad BL design possibilities, all parties benefit when designers address the basic tenets of andragogy (Merriam & Bierema, 2014) and the specific value of online and face-to-face modalities (Collins & Zacharakis, 2010). The decision-making matrix is not intended as a definitive statement on designing BL for adults, but rather concrete criteria for instructors’ consideration. In addition, the matrix provides opportunities for adult educators, course designers, and practitioners of all types to examine the ways a blended course may or may not address the needs of a specific student group.

Certainly, the BL literature and the current spectrum of possibility may not yet encompass solutions that serve every learner population, particularly given the rapid pace at which educational technology evolves. As such, we suggest scholars and practitioners continue to explore beneficial approaches for supporting learners and designing adult BL experiences. Future research should continue to investigate adults’ BL in comparison with fully in-person or online courses, and empirically examine and compare various BL formats. Other broad considerations, such as universal design for learning (Rogers-Shaw et al., 2018) and the role of the instructor (Caudle, 2013), also merit further attention.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kelly McKenna

Jill Zarestky

Author Biographies

Kelly McKenna, PhD, is an assistant professor at Colorado State University in the School of Education. Her research focuses on distance education with attention to technology enhanced teaching and learning and online learning communities.

Kalpana Gupta, EdD, is an assistant professor at Colorado State University in the School of Education. Her research investigates self-directed advising, creating inclusive learning environments, accelerated learning, neuroscience, and transformative learning.

Leann Kaiser, PhD, is an assistant professor at Colorado State University in the School of Education. Her major research interests relate to distance and online learning for adults and professional experiences in natural resource education programming and public land management.

Tobin Lopes, PhD, is an assistant professor at Colorado State University in the School of Education. His research interests focus on workforce education, evaluation and assessment, hybrid learning and teaching methods for adults, career development, and quantitative research methods.

Jill Zarestky, PhD, is an assistant professor at Colorado State University in the School of Education. Her research interests include nonformal and community-based education, STEM education, and issues of feminism, globalization, and social justice.

References

Baragash

R. S.

Al-Samarraie

(2018). An empirical study of the impact of multiple modes of delivery on student learning in a blended course. The Reference Librarian, 59(3), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2018.1467295

Bower

Dalgarno

Kennedy

G. E.

Lee

M. J. W.

Kenney

(2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1–17.

Butz

N. T.

Stupinsky

R. H.

(2016). A mixed methods study of graduate students’ self-determined motivation in synchronous hybrid learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 85–95.

Castaño-Muñoz

Duart

J. M.

Sancho-Vinuesa

(2014). The Internet in face-to-face higher education: Can interactive learning improve academic achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 149–159.

Caudle

L. A.

(2013). Using a sociocultural perspective to establish teaching and social presences within a hybrid community of mentor teachers. Adult Learning, 24(3), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159513489112

Cocquyt

Diep

N. A.

Zhu

De Greef

Vanwing

(2017). Examining social inclusion and social capital among adult learners in blended and online learning environments. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 8(1), 77–101.

Collins

R. A.

Zacharakis

(2010). Impact of e-learning on adult education: A changing postmodern approach. In Kidd

(Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices (pp. 273–283). IGI Global.

Cundell

Sheepy

(2018). Student perceptions of the most effective and engaging online learning activities in a blended graduate seminar. Online Learning, 22(3), 87–102. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.24059/olj.v22i3.1467

Deschacht

Goeman

(2015). The effect of blended learning on course persistence and performance of adult learners: A difference-in-differences analysis. Computers & Education, 87, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.020

10.

Frerichs

S. W.

Fenton

M. S. P.

Wingert

(2018). A model for out-of-school educator professional learning. Adult Learning, 29(3), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159518773908

11.

Garcia

Abrego

Calvillo

(2014). A study of hybrid instructional delivery for graduate students in an educational leadership course. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 29(1), 1–15.

12.

Z.-G.

(2012). Cyber asynchronous versus blended cyber approach in distance English learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 286–297.

13.

Hahs-Vaughn

D. L.

Acquaye

Griffith

M. D.

Matthews

Acharya

(2017). Statistical literacy as a function of online versus hybrid course delivery format for an introductory graduate statistics course. Journal of Statistics Education, 25(3), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2017.1370363

14.

Hall

Villareal

(2015). The hybrid advantage: Graduate student perspectives of hybrid education courses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(1), 69–80.

15.

Hinshaw

R. E.

Gumus

S. S.

(2013). Universal design for learning principles in a hybrid course: Perceptions and practice. SAGE Open, 3, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013480789

16.

Johansen

Harding

Ljosaa

T. M.

(2012). Norwegian nurses’ experiences with blended learning: An evaluation study. Seminar.Net: International Journal of Media, Technology & Lifelong Learning, 8(1). https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/seminar/article/view/2402

17.

Xie

(2009). Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 12, 136–145.

18.

Kerres

De Witt

(2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165032000165653

19.

Kim

Bonk

C. J.

. (2008). The present and future state of blended learning in workplace learning settings in the United States. Performance Improvement, 47(8), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.20018

20.

Klotz

D. E.

Wright

T. A.

(2017). A best practice modular design of a hybrid course delivery structure for an executive education program. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 15(1), 25–41.

21.

Lai

Lam

K. M.

Lim

C. P.

(2016). Design principles for the blend in blended learning: A collective case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(6), 716–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1183611

22.

Kay

Markovich

(2018). Student attitudes toward blended learning in adult literacy and basic skills college programs. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 44(2). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/184786/

23.

Lim

D. H.

Morris

M. L.

Kupritz

V. W

. (2019). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Online Learning, 11(2), 27–42. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.24059/olj.v11i2.1725

24.

Marquis

G. P.

Ghosh

(2017). Student preferences for a hybrid course. Journal of Education for Business, 92(3), 105–113.

25.

Merriam

S. B.

Bierema

L. L.

(2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. Jossey-Bass.

26.

Nollenberger

(2017). On-campus versus hybrid courses in a Master of Public Administration program. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 23(1), 625–636.

27.

Pilcher

S. E.

(2017). Hybrid course design: A different type of polymer blend. Journal of Chemical Education, 94, 1696–1701. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00809

28.

Rogers-Shaw

Carr-Chellman

D. J.

Choi

(2018). Universal design for learning: Guidelines for accessible online instruction. Adult Learning, 29(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159517735530

29.

Snowball

J. D.

(2014). Using interactive content and online activities to accommodate diversity in a large first year class. Higher Education, 67, 823–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9708-7

30.

Torrisi-Steele

Drew

(2013). The literature landscape of blended learning in higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(4), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.786720

31.

University of Central Florida. (n.d.). Benefits of blended learning. https://blended.online.ucf.edu/about/benefits-of-blended-learning

32.

Vanslambrouck

Zhu

Lombaerts

Philipsen

Tondeur

(2018). Students’ motivation and subjective task value of participating in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 33–40.

33.

Vanslambrouck

Zhu

Pynoo

Lombaerts

Tondeur

Scherer

(2019). A latent profile analysis of adult students’ online self-regulation in blended learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.021

34.

H. M.

Zhu

Diep

N. A.

(2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17–28.

35.

Youde

(2018). Andragogy in blended learning contexts: Effective tutoring of adult learners studying part-time, vocationally relevant degrees at a distance. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 37(2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2018.1450303

36.

Zimmerman

W. A.

(2019). Long video lectures: Shifting to an adult learning perspective. Adult Learning, 30(1), 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159518797983