Blended Learning From Design to Evaluation: International Case Studies of Evidence-Based Practice

Prof. Norman D. Vaughan, Aline Reali, Stefan Stenbom, Marieta Jansen Van Vuuren, David MacDonald


This study compares and contrasts four international faculty development programs for blended learning in order to understand the benefits, challenges, lessons learned, and recommendations from such initiatives. The benefits identified for faculty members, who participated in these programs, were that they became more reflective of their teaching practice and began to make a role adjustment from being a content provider to a designer and facilitator of learning for students. The biggest challenge appeared to be a lack of common institutional definition and understanding of blended learning as well as a lack of time and resources to support faculty in the redesign of their courses. With regards to lessons learned, each program emphasized the need for all institutional stakeholders to be involved in supporting the initiative and that blended learning does not simply imply adding digital technologies to an existing face-to-face course. The key recommendation from this study is that a faculty development program for blended learning needs to be clearly aligned with the institution’s vision and mission.


blended learning, institutional vision, pedagogical framework, reflective practice

Full Text:



Cher Ping. L., and Libing, W. (2016). Blended learning for quality higher education: Selected

case studies on implementation from Asia-Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved online from:

EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2017). The 2017 key issues in teaching and learning.

Retrieved online from:

Garrison, D. R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry. London:


Kenny, R.W. (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's

Research Universities. Stony Brook, NY: University of New York at Stony


KTH. (2017). KTH Vision 2027. Retrieved online from:

Murray, J.P. (2002). Faculty Development in SACS – Accredited Community Colleges.

Community College Review, 29 (4), 50 – 66.

Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C. D., Graham, C. R., & Moskal, P. D. (2016). Conducting research

in online and blended learning environments: New pedagogical frontiers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Picciano, A.G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous

Learning Networks, 13 (1). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. pp. 7-18.

Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of

blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748-762. doi:10.1111/bjet.12269

Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in

higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011

Rice, R., Sorcinelli, M., & Austin, A. (2000). Heeding New Voices: Academic Careers

for a New Generation. Working Paper Inquiry #7. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Siemens, G., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university. Athabasca University.

Retrieved online from:

Sriarunrasme, J., Techataweewan, W.,Mebusaya, R.P. (2015). Blended learning supporting self-

directed learning and communication skills of Srinakharinwirot University’s first year students. Journal Social and Behavior Science. 197(2015) 1564-1569.

Trowler, P., Ashwin, P., & Saunders, M. (2014). The role of HEFCE in teaching and learning

enhancement: A review of evaluative evidence. Heslington York: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved online from:

Twigg, C.A. (2003). Improving Quality and Reducing Costs: Designs for Effective

Learning. Change, 35 (4), 23 – 29.

University of Ottawa. (2017). Destination 20/20. Retrieved online from:


Copyright (c) 2017 Prof. Norman D. Vaughan, Aline Reali, Stefan Stenbom, Marieta Jansen Van Vuuren, David MacDonald