Reflections on experiences of blended learning among leading countries in this field: Lessons for Iranian Higher Education

Document Type : Original Article

Author
zahra rashidi
, Institute for Research and Planning in Higher education
10.61838/irphe.29.1.2
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of top universities in the field of blended education in different countries in order to develop and improve the quality of Blended education in Iran’s universities. Blended learning as the third wave of learning environments, afterwards face-to-face and electronic environments in universities and educational organizations to respond to changes in society (including and most importantly, the pandemic of Covid-19 virus) with the aim of enhancing the quality of learning, border on expanding the scope of coverage and cost reduction. In order to reach appropriate solutions in this field, the researcher has used the qualitative research approach and the comparative study method. The selection of top universities (Boston of USA, York of Canada, Manchester of England, Hong Kong education of China, Open University of Malaysia) in the field of blended education based on the official reports of the Times (2021), which considers teaching and learning in the Covid pandemic era and online education, and ranks universities. This approach is aligned with the purpose of the study and made the selection of universities possible for this study. In addition to the ranking of universities, geographical distribution and availability of data were considered in this regard. Count on theoretical foundations, specifically in the realm of the exploratory community, in addition to examining the concept and approach of the university to Blended education, categories such as the structure of the higher education system, the type of university, policies and strategies, management style, educational resources, educational and technological supports, teaching style, the tools and evaluation system were selected and then George Brody's four-stage model was used to analyze the collected data. The findings show that all five universities have officially presented a specific and systematic definition of Blended education and in this regard targeted activities such as the development of technological infrastructure, educational and technological supports, efficient teaching methods according to the nature of Blended education in this course have followed. As a result, a look at the structure and type of the higher education system of these universities illustrate that those who have enjoyed more independence have predicted a more creative planning and strategy in relation to the studied components. The support system in all five universities is prepared according to the cultural and social conditions of the audience. Teaching and face-to-face interactions between students and professors are carried out in regional units, and it is in this regard that students can benefit from professors' guidance in online classes and using software capacities during offline training. In all the studied universities, formative and final evaluation have been used to monitor the quality of the course. According to the results and these three strategies (educational changes, social changes, and cultural changes), and taking into account the existing infrastructure of virtual education in Iran, some lessons have been proposed for Blended education in Iran’s universities.

Keywords

  1.  

    References

    1. Academic Innovation Fund (2021). About the Academic Innovation Fund (AIF). Retrieved form https://www.yorku.ca/aifprojects/about-the-academic-innovation-fund/.
    2. Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2008). A study of student's perceptions in a blended learning environment based on different learning styles.
    3. Asarta, C. J., & Schmidt, J. R. (2020). The effects of online and blended experience on outcomes in a blended learning environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 44, 100708.
    4. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Retrieved October 12, 2005 from http://www. uab. edu/it/instructional/technology/docs/blended_learning_systems. pdf.
    5. Bordoloi, R., Das, P., & Das, K. (2021). Perception towards online/blended learning at the time of Covid-19 pandemic: An academic analytics in the Indian context. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal.
    6. Bourne, K., & Seamna, J. (2005). Sloan-C special survey report: A look at blended learning. Sloan Consortium.
    7. BU Annual Report (2021). Retrieved from https://digital.bu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/DLI-2021-Annual-Report. pdf .
    8. Deperlioglu, O., & Kose, U. (2013). The effectiveness and experiences of blended learning approaches to computer programming education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 21, 328-342. doi:10.1002/cae.20476.
    9. Digital Learning and Innovation (2021). Digital Multimedia Expression https://digital.bu.edu/digital-multimedia-expression/.
    10. EdUHK. (2016). QS World University Rankings: HKIEd 2nd in Asia & 12th in the World in Education. HKIED News, May 2016 (17). Retrieved 15 October 2016 from https://www.hkiednews.edu.hk/en/section/index.do?sectionCode=1459306819174.
    11. Elkhoury, E., & Frake-Mistak, M. (2021). HYFLEX COURSE DESIGN, York University.
    12. Fazlalizadeh, R., Aghazadeh, A., & Ahghar, G. (2012). Analytical and Comparative study of Distance education for higher education in Iran, England and India. Research in Curriculum Planning, 9(32), 28-48 [in Persian].
    13. Fisher, J. F., Bushko, K., & White, J. (2017). Blended beyond borders: A scan of blended learning obstacles and opportunities in Brazil, Malaysia, & South Africa. WISE.
    14. Garrison, D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.
    15. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381‑
    16. Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145-178.
    17. Hickman, H. (2007). Face-to-screen learning. Business Magazine. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from http://businesstn.com/content/face-screen-learning.
    18. Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2015) Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
    19. Kim, G. C., & Gurvitch, R. (2020). Online education research adopting the community of inquiry framework: a systematic review. Quest, 72(4), 395-409.
    20. Kumar, A., Krishnamurthi, R., Bhatia, S., Kaushik, K., Ahuja, N. J., Nayyar, A., & Masud, M. (2021). Blended Learning Tools and Practices: A Comprehensive Survey. IEEE Access.
    21. Lee, G., Fong, W. W., & Gordon, J. (2013). Blended learning: The view is different from student, teacher, or institution perspective. Hybrid Learning and Continuing Education (pp. 356-363). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
    22. Lim, C. P., & Wang, T. (2016). 7. Professional Development for Blended Learning in a Faculty: A Case Study of the Education University of Hong Kong. Blended, 187.
    23. Loveless, A. M. (2006). Where do you stand to get a good view of pedagogy?. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 337-349.
    24. Madandar Arani, A., & Kakia, L. (2015). Comparative education: New perspectives. AEEIZH
    25. Manchester University (2021). Institute of Teaching and Learning, retrieved from https://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/umitl/resources/delivering-blended-learning/
    26. Marquis, C. (2004). WebCT survey discovers a blend of online learning and classroom-based teaching is the most effective form of learning today.  Com.
    27. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
    28. Oakley Burks, (2015). Blended Learning: A New Approach in Higher Education, University of Illinois at Springfield http://www. burksoakley.com
    29. Palmer, E., Lomer, S., & Bashliyska, I. (2017). Overcoming barriers to student engagement with Active Blended Learning: Interim report. University of Northampton.
    30. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning ti teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
    31. Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701.
    32. Rashidi, Z. (2021). A comparative study on experiences of blended learning among leading countries in this field: Lessons for Iranian Higher Education. Research Project Higher Education Research and Planning Institute [in Persian].
    33. Rouhani, S., & Rashidi, Z. (2021). A framework for financial autonomy in universities applying Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) technique. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 1400(1), 117-152 [in Persian].
    34. Seraji, F. (2020). What differences? Thematic analyses of blended learning researches in Iran. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1-18.
    35. Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2008). Success factors for blended learning. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/stacey.pdf.
    36. Swan, B., & Dixon, J. (2006). The effects of mentor‑supported technology professional development on middle school mathematics teachers’ attitudes and practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 67‑
    37. Vogel, D., & Klassen, J. (2001). Technology supported learning: status, issues and trends. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 104–111. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2001.00163.x.
    38. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker, 9(5), 2-3.
    39. Yang, R. (2006). Transnational higher education in Hong Kong: An analysis. Transnational Hhigher Education in Asia and the Pacific Region, 10, 35-58.
    40. York University (2019). York University and IBM develop and launch AI-powered student support pilot. Retrieved from https://yfile.news.yorku.ca/ 2019/03/21/york-university-and-ibm-develop-and-launch-ai-powered-student-support-pilot/.
    41. Zaraii Zavaraki, E., Mousa Ramezani, S., & Saeid-Pour, M. (2013). Blendede Learning in Higher Education (Framework, Principles and Guidelines). Avaye Noor Publications [in Persian].

     

  • Receive Date 18 May 2022
  • Accept Date 17 May 2023
  • Publish Date 23 September 2023