Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Blended learning: a look into teachers’ perceptions on their role in a 21st century classroom
(USC Thesis Other)
Blended learning: a look into teachers’ perceptions on their role in a 21st century classroom
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS
BLENDED LEARNING:
A look into teachers’ perceptions on their role in a 21
st
Century classroom
by
Kimberly A. Garcia
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2022
Copyright 2021 Kimberly A. Garcia
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ii
Acknowledgements
In 2015, I accepted the challenge of opening a new school that focused on the student-
centered practices of personalized learning. Over the last six years, the school has expanded to
two school sites, serving students from elementary to middle and high school. I want to thank
the teachers, students, and parents who have supported our vision and helped to ensure the
success of the school.
On a personal note, I want to thank my friends and family for their continual support as I
worked to complete the coursework and dissertation. There were many challenges and I
appreciate all the phone calls and messages of encouragement along the way. I would like to
extend a very special thank you to my committee members, Dr. Jenifer Crawford, Dr. Rose Pike,
and especially my chair, Dr. Paula Carbone, for sticking with me through the many years it took
me to complete this study. I am forever grateful for your patience and reassurance throughout
the process. Thank you.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables and Figures ........................................................................................................... v
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ........................................................................ 1
Background of the Problem......................................................................................................... 3
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 7
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 9
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 10
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 11
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................... 11
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 16
History of Blended Learning Environments ............................................................................. 19
Distance Learning Model .......................................................................................................... 19
The Rise of e-Learning .......................................................................................................... 20
The Socio-constructivist Theory of Learning ........................................................................ 21
Current State of Blended Learning............................................................................................ 24
Blended Learning Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 25
Definition of Blended Learning ............................................................................................. 26
Blended Learning Pedagogy and Instructional Practices ...................................................... 28
Blended Learning and Socio-Constructivist Practices .......................................................... 30
Equitable access to the curriculum through blended learning models ...................................... 32
Student-Centered Learning .................................................................................................... 34
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................................... 43
Research Design and Methods .................................................................................................. 43
Sample and Site Selection ......................................................................................................... 44
Access/Entry .......................................................................................................................... 45
Data Collection and Instrumentation......................................................................................... 46
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 46
Reliability, Validity, and Positionality in Qualitative Research ............................................... 47
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 48
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS iv
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 49
Context of Sites and Participants .............................................................................................. 51
Emergent Themes in Data Findings .......................................................................................... 53
Lack of Coherence among Blended Learning Definitions and the Role of the Teacher .......... 55
Lack of Coherence in Participant’s Personal Definitions of Blended Learning .................... 58
Varying Perceptions about the Teacher’s Role in a Blended Learning Environment ........... 64
Lack of Coherence in Instructional Models and Varying Degrees of Access and Equity. ....... 72
Instructional Practices and Delivery Models ......................................................................... 74
Varying Degrees of Access and Equity in Blended Learning ............................................... 78
Degrees of Access and Equitable Practices ........................................................................... 81
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 83
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 85
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 88
Implications ............................................................................................................................... 91
Recommendations for Research ................................................................................................ 95
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 98
References ................................................................................................................................... 100
Appendix A: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 109
Appendix B: Interview Questions ............................................................................................... 110
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS v
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1. Commiunity of Inquiry Framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) ................ 23
Table 1. Participant Characteristics ............................................................................................. 52
Table 2. Emergent Themes from Research Questions .................................................................. 55
Table 3. Research Question 1 Participant's Definition of Blended Learning ............................... 57
Table 4. Research Question 1 Teacher's Perception of their Role in a BL Classroom ................. 65
Table 5. Research Question 2 Lack of Coherence in Practices and Models ................................. 73
Table 6. Research Question 2 Varying Degrees of Equity in Blended Learning ......................... 79
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS vi
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to learn about high school teachers’ perceptions about their role in
a blended learning classroom and their pedagogical approaches to blended learning instruction.
The element of teaching presence, taken from the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, was
used to examine the socio-constructivist pedagogy, originally used in distance education and
online learning programs. The study methods included interviewing nine high school teachers,
who have established reputations as blended learning instructors, having practiced blended
learning pedagogy for two years or more. Findings from this study showed that there is a lack of
coherence among blended learning definitions, instructional practices, and delivery models.
There are also varying perceptions about the role of the teacher in blended learning
environments, as well as varying degrees of access and equity. This study identified a need for
professional development in blended learning pedagogy, and an examination of whether blended
learning truly lives up to the promise of providing expanded opportunities for underserved
students.
Running head: BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The present era of high-stakes testing began increasing in 2001 with the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) where a shift in pedagogical practice resulted in the perceived
disempowerment of teachers. The new practice often required teachers to read scripted curricula
and focus on teacher-centered practices adapted to meet the demands of standardized testing
(Dole, Bloom, & Kowalske, 2016; Grant & Hill, 2006; Madaus & Russell, 2010). It was even
argued that teacher-centered practices were to blame for widespread student perceptions that
school was boring and unengaging (Fullan & Langworthy, 2013). The effects of student
disengagement can be identified as detached from school, disconnected from the norms and
expectations, disregarding feedback, failure to turn in assignments or participate in discussions,
and withdrawal from the plan to complete school. Research by Belfanz, Herzog and MacIver
(2007) identified students who become disengaged from school as having a greater risk of
dropping out during the middle and high school grades, leading to further marginalization and
inequities for underserved students in urban areas.
Although the lingering effects of NCLB remain, the pendulum swung back towards
student-centered learning in 2010. The National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers developed the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS, 2010) to guide instruction, and help shift the focus back towards student-centered
learning through opportunities for inquiry-based tasks that encouraged deeper learning,
independent thinking skills, and academic competencies that prepared students for college,
career, and civic-life.
Along with the CCSS, the Partnership for 21
st
Century Learning (P21) created a coalition
of educators, business leaders, and community members, to support learners in acquiring the
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 2
knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global society. Through the efforts of P21, the
Learning and Innovation Skills in Creativity, Critical Thinking, Collaboration, and
Communication were introduced as essential competencies for 21
st
Century Learning (P21, 2009;
Wagner, 2014).
Following a contentious time in education, where NCLB led to the deprofessionalization
of teaching, there was agreement by workforce leaders and CCSS supporters that there should be
a plan to support and develop 21
st
Century skills as a way to remain competitive in the global
society. Students needed to develop communication and collaboration skills, learning how to
work with team members, both near and abroad, who may be of different cultures, and have
different communication styles (P21, 2009). Graham (2013) stated that as teachers introduced
students to the global society through online collaboration and communication, the competencies
for 21
st
Century Learning became of even greater value in developing college and career
readiness because it showed students how to engage with people across the globe.
The ability to engage with people online was already a familiar concept to students who
were growing up in a digital rich environment. They already expected the immediacy of
technology use, and were familiar with using technology for social purposes (Prensky, 2001).
Social media and technology were already a way of life for today’s students, therefore
participating in online collaborative learning opportunities with active learning environments had
the potential to be both familiar and engaging to students. It gave students the opportunity to
engage in learning outside of the traditional classroom walls and provided them with access to
anytime-everywhere learning (Attewell & Savill-Smith, 2005), which was significant as it
pertained to equity in education and narrowing the opportunity gap (Milner, 2010). The
popularity of blended learning continued to increase as it had the potential to bridge the divide
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 3
between on-campus, in-person classes, and learning off-campus, both in-person and online
(Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kenny, 2015).
The movement towards blended learning shifted the focus away from seat-time, and
moved towards demonstrations of learning mastery, and personalized learning experiences
designed to address student needs for remediation or acceleration. Blended learning instructional
models had the potential to address opportunity gaps by providing students with access to
content that was designed to meet their learning needs, and delivered at their own pace (Bower,
et al., 2015).
The increased adoption of blended learning models suggested a pedagogical shift towards
student-centered teaching and learning with an emphasis towards student engagement. It
allowed students to have both voice and choice in learning, and prepared them for college and
career using real-world learning experiences (Bower, et al., 2015). Blended learning offered a
flexible instructional model that evolved along with the demand for expanding educational
opportunities.
Background of the Problem
The era of high-stakes testing left a lingering effect on teaching and learning (Madaus &
Russell, 2010). During the height of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), school quality was rated on
the outcomes of test scores and the focus shifted from creating positive learning environments to
spending the majority of instructional time preparing students for testing. Students were
classified and divided into groups based on how they scored on standardized assessments. This
practice led to disparities in access to high-quality teachers and curriculum. It kept already
marginalized students from realizing academic achievement at the same levels of more
mainstream students (Milner, 2010).
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 4
Over time, subjects such as history, music, art, physical education, and health were
minimalized in order to give greater priority to tested subjects such as Math, Science, and
Language Arts. Teachers’ expertise to address student needs, including the needs of students
already marginalized due to race, ethnicity and linguistic diversity, became devalued as policy-
makers showed mistrust in their ability to prepare students for a single standardized test that
would be used to make decisions about students, schools, and communities (Madaus & Russell,
2010).
Madaus and Russell (2010) further explained that children from marginalized
backgrounds are not typically socialized to focus on individualized achievement or the public
display of their accomplishments, and many marginalized cultures maintained core values of
sharing, working together, and community building, over individual successes that made up a
large part of standardized assessment measures.
In an attempt to better prepare students for high-stakes testing, teachers began to place a
greater emphasis on academic skills in Math, Science, and Language Arts, which led to a
narrowing of the curriculum. This narrowing of the curriculum resulted in a heavy emphasis on
tested subjects, while minimizing instructional time for non-tested subjects. Over time, the
narrowed instructional focus resulted in subjects such as Art, Music, Languages other than
English, and Physical Education being dropped from the curriculum in lieu of a greater focus on
tested subjects (Milner, 2010).
Additionally, students who were not deemed academically ready for kindergarten or first
grade were retained for another year of academic instruction in hope that they would achieve
higher test scores down the line (Shepard & Smith, 1988). This emphasis on demonstrating
academic proficiency on tested subjects, while ignoring proficiency on non-tested subjects, did
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 5
not paint a true picture of each student’s academic abilities. It devalued the cultural
competencies that students possess and reinforced that academic proficiency in Language Arts,
Math, and Science are the only measures that predict future success (Madaus & Russell, 2010;
Yosso, 2005).
Furthermore, some schools triaged students into ability groups where efforts become
concentrated on students who were most likely to succeed in attaining a jump to the next
proficiency band (Booher-Jennings, 2005; Kellaghan & Greaney, 1992). Those types of
practices supported inequities in outcomes, and failed to provide best first instruction practices to
students who were most in need of help. Booher-Jennings (2005) added that students who were
identified as being on the “bubble” of jumping to the next proficiency band often received more
explicit instruction from the teacher, were offered extra tutoring before or after school, and
received more attention in general, further marginalizing those students who needed the most
help. The unequitable focus on “bubble” students further diluted the limited instructional
resources leading to an even wider opportunity gap between those identified as proficient and
those identified as non-proficient, or far below proficient.
As the margin widened so does the gap in students’ achievement levels. Factors such as
a narrowed curriculum, teaching to the test, and a focus on “bubble” students, created an
opportunity gap between those students who are likely to positively affect test scores, and those
who are not. Gaps in opportunity affected teaching and learning through the practice of lowered
expectations, and mindsets that focused on skill deficits, rather than abilities (Milner, 2010).
In addition to a narrowed curriculum, lowered expectations, and a deficit mindset, the era
of high-stakes testing brought forth a multitude of teacher-centered instructional practices that
left students disengaged in learning. Students became passive recipients as teachers became
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 6
transmitters of knowledge. Instruction focused on test-taking strategies, rather than deep
understandings of the content and the ability to apply knowledge. Teachers delivered scripted
lessons, prepared by test publishers, that included “drill and kill” or rote memorization strategies
that focused on the lower levels of Blooms Taxonomy of Learning (1956).
Standardized tests were traditionally used to assess individual knowledge and measure
discrete skills. Prior to the implementation of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC) assessment in California, students were not required to work collaboratively to solve
problems, or asked to demonstrate knowledge by synthesizing, analyzing, and evaluating
information. Therefore, teachers did not regularly focus instruction in these areas or assess
students in areas of higher order critical thinking.
Following years of teacher-centered learning, employers, and community members called
for workers to possess skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and
creativity in solving workplace problems. Coalitions such as P21 were developed, and the
Common Core State Standards were adopted by states as a way to prepare students with skills
vital to the changing workplace. With these changes came a renewed focus towards student-
centered practices that called for a shift in teaching pedagogy.
The pedagogical shifts in teaching and learning transformed the role of the teacher from
the transmitter of knowledge, to a learning facilitator or coach (Dole, Bloom, & Kowalske,
2016). In their roles at learning facilitators, teachers worked with students to narrow the
opportunity gap by allowing students to work on topics of interest, at their own pace, and with a
focus on skill-development in deficit areas. Students were able to demonstrate engagement in
learning as they self-assessed on projects, and were provided with voice and choice in discussion
topics and classroom assignments (Dole, Bloom, & Kowalske, 2016).
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 7
This shift in classroom structure was part of a larger push to transform educational
pedagogy as it related to teaching and learning. Teachers facilitated the learning process as they
guided students through inquiry projects and demonstrations of learning. This was done through
face-to- face instruction, and blended learning options that allowed students to complete work
on-line, either in class, or outside of the traditional classroom walls. Blended learning is
considered a student-centered practice that offers the potential to narrow the opportunity gap
through student engagement, flexible pacing, and anytime-everywhere opportunities for learning.
Statement of the Problem
High-stakes testing reinforced and often mandated a teacher-centered pedagogy that
resulted in low-expectations for student learning, a narrowed curriculum focused on test-taking
strategies, and disengaged students demonstrating rote memorization and low-level learning
(Madaus & Russell, 2010). Business leaders and community leaders found that students did not
possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in the global society (P21, 2009). There
were gaps in student’s abilities to think critically, engage a problem from many different
perspectives, students were challenged to effectively communicate their thoughts, and
collaborate with others in-person or via the Internet. What is more, workers needed to develop
non-cognitive skills and dispositions such as tenacity, persistence, and problem-solving abilities
in order to compete in the global market (Dweck, Walton, & Cohen, 2014; Wagner, 2008).
This is significant in that the workforce called upon learning institutions and communities
to develop an educational system that would train students in the desired academic and non-
cognitive skills. In response, the CCSS (2010) framework provided exemplar instructional
vignettes that included student-centered learning practices that described elements of inquiry,
deep thinking, collaboration, and presentations of integrated learning. Forty-two of the fifty
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 8
United States initially adopted the CCSS by 2012, with the intent to shift towards student-
centered learning practices.
As school districts initiated professional development in implementing the CCSS,
questions began to emerge as to the changing role of the teacher. Many teachers had been
trained in the teacher-centered approach and needed “re-training” or additional professional
development to understand the pedagogical shift. Still, several years after states adopted the
CCSS, schools and districts continued to see the need to train teachers in student-centered
approaches and help teachers to develop their role as learning facilitators and coaches (Dole,
Bloom, & Kowalske, 2016). Years of high-stakes testing had lingering effects on teaching and
learning with teachers trying to navigate their way through the shifts (Madaus & Russell, 2010).
Pedagogical shifts towards student-centered learning practices were intended to re-
engage students in learning through sustained inquiry, choice in topics of study, flexible pacing
of lessons and activities, and deeper interactions between teachers and students (Patrick,
Kennedy, & Powell, 2013). Blended learning environments supported this model by allowing
anytime-everywhere learning on topics of choice with the opportunity for individual pacing.
Blended learning provided the opportunity for teachers to assign activities for remediation and/or
acceleration of skills based on student needs. Students regularly participated and engaged with
other learners to develop academic and non-cognitive skills that prepare them for college, career,
and civic-life. Thus, providing the desired set of job skills and dispositions sought by future
employers.
Although the pedagogical practices have roots in constructivist philosophies leading back
to Dewey (1929), Piaget (1976), and Vygotsky (1978), the field of research on blended learning
environments, using online technology, is fairly limited. More and more teachers use blended
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 9
learning to support classroom instruction; however, the model is not consistently practiced in
every classroom at every school. What is more, blended learning models have been critiqued for
the limited use of face-to-face instruction and the diminished sense of community among class
members (Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004).
In an effort to identify the prerequisites for a successful educational experience, Garrison,
Anderson, & Archer (2000) developed a Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework that identified
the interrelated constructs of social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence in online
learning environments. In reviewing the original framework, Swan, Garrison, & Richardson
(2009) presented the CoI framework as a collaborative-constructivist, or social-constructivist,
approach to online and blended learning instruction that has roots in the early theories of
teaching and learning. This framework will be discussed further in the review of literature.
According to Halverson, Graham, Spring, & Drysdale (2012) and Skrypnyk et al. (2015),
research on the topics of blended learning environments, the changing role of the teacher, and
teaching presence, have all been under-studied. The scope of this study will be to add to the
body of knowledge about teacher roles in enacting blended learning, and to gain additional
information about teachers’ perceptions on blended learning instruction.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ perceptions and gather data about their
role in blended learning classroom, their pedagogical approach to blended learning instruction,
and the strategies that were used to deliver the curriculum in high school classrooms. The
findings of the study have the potential to inform practice and identify areas for future
professional development to improve the quality of blended learning instruction. The following
questions guided my research:
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 10
1. How do high school teachers perceive their roles in blended learning environments?
2. How do high school teachers describe their pedagogical approach to blended learning
instruction to include teaching presence?
I chose a qualitative methodology for this study because I wanted to learn how people
interpreted their experiences and constructed their world (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In this
particular study, I wanted to learn and understand the pedagogy associated with blended learning
and teachers’ perceptions about their role in the blended learning environment.
My purpose for conducting this study was to engage in applied research that might lead
to improvements in instructional pedagogy for blended learning and the role of blended learning
teachers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). With that purpose, I engaged in in-depth interviews to
collect rich, descriptive qualitative data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña,
2014). My goal was to learn about teachers’ perceptions and ask about each person’s thoughts
and feelings related to pedagogical approaches and teaching presence in a blended learning
classroom.
Significance of the Study
Blended learning environments are an emerging field of study. Most of the field
research has been conducted with early adopters who recognized the need to shift towards a
student-centered pedagogy. The significance of this study is that it will add to the body of
knowledge about teachers’ perceptions of their role in blended learning environments. It
provided teacher descriptions of pedagogical approaches in blended learning instruction that may
support future professional development to improve teaching and learning. The study will serve
as a resource to other teachers as they navigate their way through blended learning environments
and seek to include learner-centered practices.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 11
Since the study was conducted, there was a world-wide Coronavirus (COVID-19)
pandemic that caused schools to close down for in-person instruction in March 2020. The result
was the emergency implementation of distance learning for an extended period ranging from six
to seventeen months. The discussion in Chapter 5 will include implications and
recommendations for research that resulted from this study, and will also include implications
and findings from the emergency response protocols that were enacted due to extended school
closures that occurred throughout the State of California.
Limitations and Delimitations
One of the limitations of this study is that the perceptions and beliefs were representative
of self-identified early adopters of blended learning. It is not representative of the perceptions
and beliefs of teachers as a whole. An additional limiting factor is that teachers self-reported
practices and the descriptions of practice might not be completely accurate. However, the small
sample size in the study aided the researcher’s ability to go deep with the interview questions and
helped to develop an accurate understanding of each teacher’s perceptions and beliefs about
blended learning instruction.
A delimitation of the study is that it focused solely on early adopters of blended learning
environments and excluded the perceptions of teachers in traditional learning environments. The
study was reflective of each teacher’s professional development and training in technology-rich
instruction, blended learning, student engagement, and online teaching presence. Lastly, the
participants were from a purposeful sample and were self-selected as volunteers.
Definition of Terms
Anytime-Everywhere Learning is a term that refers to the practice of allowing students
equitable opportunities to learn outside of the traditional school day and building. Students can
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 12
use digital technologies to study and complete assignments at any location and at any time
(Atwell & Savill-Smith, 2005).
Blended Learning is a formal education program utilizing student-centered practices through a
combination of anytime-everywhere online learning and supervised instruction in a brick-and-
mortar location away from home. It combines high-quality face-to-face instruction with online
learning that gives students control over time, place, path, and/or pace (Staker & Horn, 2012;
Patrick & Sturgis, 2015).
Brick-and-Mortar is a traditional school with a physical location.
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of clear college- and career-ready standards
for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts/literacy and mathematics. They
were designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to take credit
bearing introductory courses in two- or four-year college programs or enter the workforce.
Computer-Mediated-Communication refers to communication involving individuals who are
communicating through distance communication technologies, such as email, chat, or
videoconferencing (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995).
Face-to-Face is the physical experience in how a student and teacher communicate in person or
online using video conferencing modalities.
Independent Learning Strategies are strategies students have learned to use independently that
help them effectively accomplish tasks or meet goals.
Instructional Strategies are techniques teachers use to help students become independent,
strategic learners.
Learning Objectives are teaching and learning expectations across multiple developmental
stages, ages, and grade levels.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 13
Mastery Learning is a demonstrated level of targeted achievement relative to the learning
objective.
Ownership in Learning means that students have frequent opportunities to direct and reflect to
improve their own learning progression towards college, career, and civic-life. Increasing
responsibility is developed through self-regulation, and developing voice and choice in learning.
Personalization is when teaching and learning is personalized to meet each student’s individual
developmental needs, skills, and interests (See Student Agency).
Real-World Learning refers to educational and instructional techniques that connect learning in
school to authentic issues, problems, and applications.
Reflective Practice is how practitioners develop a greater understanding and self-awareness of
their instructional practice (Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993).
Self-Regulation is the ability to be goal-directed, demonstrate control and responsibility over
one’s focus and effort when engaged in learning activities, and strategically modulate one’s
emotional reactions to the environment (Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012).
Social Capital is gained through access to economic resources and social networks that are
valued by those in power (Yosso, 2005).
Student Agency is the capacity to act in a way that produces meaningful changes in learning or
in the environment (See Ownership in Learning).
Student-Centered Pedagogy refers to inquiry-based tasks that require the student to develop,
agency in developing their voice and choice in learning using independent thinking skills that
prepare them for success in college, career, and civic-life (Bower, et al., 2015).
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 14
Teaching Presence involves the ability to sustain and facilitate discussions, provide feedback,
and establish a culture of inquiry that integrates critical thinking and problem solving (Garrison,
Anderson, & Archer, 2001).
Teacher’s Role refers to the pedagogical beliefs enacted to support student learning in the
classroom or online.
Technology-Rich Instruction refers to an instructional program that shares the features of
traditional instruction with digital enhancements (i.e., devices that connect to the Internet, digital
notebooks, document cameras, Internet tools) that do not allow for control over time, place, path
and/or pace (Staker & Horn, 2012).
Underserved Students refers to students who are an ethnic or linguistic minority and are socio-
economically disadvantaged (Hunsaker, 1994).
Voice and Choice in Learning is when learners have significant and meaningful input into
decisions that shape their learning both inside and outside of school (Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012)
Organization of the Study
The study was organized around the background of the problem, which stated that high-
stakes testing led to a teacher-centered pedagogy that increased the opportunity gap by including
a narrowed curriculum that left students disengaged in learning. A renewed shift towards
learner-centered instruction has increased the prevalence of blended learning environments, and
is being used to narrow the opportunity gap. The research questions drove the study with the
purpose of inquiry into teachers’ perceptions about their role in blended learning environments
and changes in their pedagogical approaches toward blended learning instruction and teaching
presence. Included in this chapter were the purpose, limitations and delimitations, and definition
of terms that were used in the study.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 15
The next chapter reviews the literature in regards to blended learning environments,
pedagogy, and teaching presence. It also contains the theoretical framework identifying the
socio-constructivist aspect of blended learning, and how the element of teaching presence
remains an important factor in the educational experience. Chapter 3 discusses the research
methods in respect to the sample, interview protocol, and data collection. It is followed up by
Chapter 4, which consists of analysis procedures used to identify themes and patterns within the
interview data. Lastly, the final chapter offers a conclusion that discusses implications for
further research and practice.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
As discussed in Chapter 1, years of high-stakes testing and teacher-centered pedagogical
practices resulted in a narrowed curriculum that reinforced low expectations for student learning
and student disengagement (Madaus & Russell, 2010). Over the past decade the workforce
recognized that schools were deficit in teaching the desired soft skills, such as critical thinking,
collaboration, effective communication, problem solving, and persistence, and targeted these
particular skills and dispositions as areas of high need (P21, 2009; Dweck, Walton, & Cohen,
2014; Wagner, 2014). Skill deficits in these areas present a challenge to already marginalized
students by continuing to deny them access to educational opportunities, gainful employment,
and lucrative careers in the global economy (Madaus & Russell, 2010; Milner 2010; Wagner,
2014). This inequity limits career aspirations and places underserved students at a greater risk
for dropout, thereby reducing the opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty (Belfanz, Herzog, &
MacIver, 2007; Milner, 2010).
In order to prepare students for a global economy and higher paying jobs, schools needed
to teach students how to think critically, analyze, critique, and communicate with others, both in-
person and online (Griffin & Care, 2014). One way that schools can facilitate this type of soft
skill instruction, is by integrating the practices of face-to-face instruction with online learning
platforms, known as a blended learning environment.
Blended learning environments support student-centered learning by shifting ownership
from the teacher, to the students, by developing ownership in learning (Dole, Bloom, &
Kowalske, 2016; Wagner, 2014). The practices used in blended learning environments help to
prepare students for the skills required in global economy. What is more, blended learning has
the potential to narrow the opportunity gap through equitable access to a rigorous, high-quality
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 17
curriculum that might not otherwise be offered at school (P21, 2009; Bower, et al., 2015;
Graham, 2013; Milner, 2010; Wagner, 2014).
In addition to the expanded opportunities for inquiry-based, high-quality face-to-face
learning, blended learning environments offer an additional advantage of asynchronous online
learning that can be accessed anytime, and everywhere (Attewell & Savill-Smith, 2005).
Anytime-Everywhere learning means that students are not confined to the time and place
restraints of face-to-face learning opportunities; rather they are able to learn at a time and place
that is convenient to them.
Student-centered learning practices can be offered in both the synchronous and
asynchronous elements of blended learning, thereby allowing students the opportunity for voice,
choice, and pace in designing their own learning pathways (Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013).
Blended learning pedagogy has its roots in constructivist philosophies, where students are
encouraged to take a learning voyage that is guided by student interest, independent research,
and deep learning about a topic of choice (Piaget, 1976; Dewey, 1929; Vygotsky, 1978).
This type of constructivist learning varies in contrast to the teacher-centered practices that
had been in place during recent years. The increased popularity of blended learning instruction
signals a shift in student-centered teaching and learning, and research in this emerging field is
very limited to date. What is more, research on practices, pedagogy, and the role of the teacher,
have been understudied by the field of research (Halverson, Graham, Spring, & Drysdale, 2012;
Parks, Oliver, & Carson, 2016; Skrypnyk et al. 2015).
The purpose of the study will be to learn about high school teachers’ perceptions about
their role in blended learning environments and the pedagogical practices used in blended
learning environments. The significance will be to engage in a discussion about improvements
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 18
to instructional pedagogy and identify areas of need for future professional development. The
goal of the study will be to add to the body of knowledge and potentially improve blended
learning instruction and outcomes for students by working to narrow the opportunity gap.
The following questions will guide my research:
1. How do high school teachers perceive their roles in blended learning environments?
2. How do high school teachers describe their pedagogical approach to blended learning
instruction to include teaching presence?
In this chapter, I will provide a history of blended learning that details the merging of
face-to-face instruction with online learning. I will discuss the current state of blended learning
and the promising aspect of helping to provide learners with equitable access to courses and
curriculum that once seemed out of reach. I will further explain the ways blended learning can
help to narrow the opportunity gap and create equitable learning opportunities through access to
high quality teachers and rigorous curriculum (Bower, et al., 2015). Blended learning
environments have the potential to level the playing field and help underserved students rise to
levels of academic achievement that are commensurate with mainstream students (Milner, 2010).
From there, I will delve into a discussion on student-centered teaching and learning,
looking into the socio-constructivist aspects of blended learning classrooms and discuss the
potential impact on learning. Following that, I will examine the Community of Inquiry (CoI)
theoretical framework that includes teaching presence in blended learning environments. Lastly,
I will follow-up by examining teachers’ perceptions about their role and experiences with
blended learning, and will conclude with a discussion on using blended learning as a tool to help
narrow the opportunity gap.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 19
History of Blended Learning Environments
Amidst the decades of scripted curriculum and teacher-centered pedagogy, there was a
widespread belief by students, that school was boring and unengaging (Fullan & Langworthy,
2013). Teachers spent hour after hour, day after day, preparing students for standardized testing.
Most instruction focused on rote memorization of facts, and instructing students on how to select
the correct and most appropriate answer to standardized test questions (Grant & Hill, 2006).
According to Grant & Hill (2006), teaching to the test kept teaching and learning at the
surface level, and did not focus on higher order thinking skills or depth of knowledge.
Furthermore, teacher-centered pedagogy established that teachers were dispensers of knowledge,
and students were the empty vessels, waiting to be filled with facts, dates, and events (Siemens,
Gasevic, & Dawson, 2015). Learning was not social; it was an individual process where students
worked directly under a teacher’s supervision to demonstrate proficiency on standardized tests
(Madaus & Russell, 2010). The teacher-centered, direct instruction model served its purpose in
preparing students for testing, however students needed to be physically present in a brick-and-
mortar classroom to benefit from the standard method of direct instruction.
Distance Learning Model
Traditionally, the teacher-directed, face-to-face instructional model has been the standard
in K-12 classrooms and most institutes of higher learning (IHE). Over the last fifty years, some
IHEs began to use distance learning as a popular alternative to face-to-face learning. Students
who enrolled in distance learning classes did not have to commit to attending classes on campus,
nor were they required to attend classes at certain times and on certain days of the week
(Holmberg, 2005). This flexible learning model made learning accessible to students who were
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 20
unavailable to attend classes as prescribed times due to work hours, geographical distance, or
challenges with childcare (Moore & Kearsley, 1996).
According to Moore and Kearsley (1996), and Holmberg (2005), students who
participated in distance-learning had the freedom and independence to complete the required
coursework by watching pre-taped videos, reading textbooks, and independently answering
questions, at their own pace, before mailing back their assignments. In a typical distance-
learning model, students and teachers do not have predetermined class times or specific class
meetings. The only occasion when students and instructors are required to meet face-to-face is
for midterm assessments, and end of course exams (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). As a result, the
social interactions between distance learning teachers, students, and classmates, are very limited.
The lack of two-way dialogue is known to be a challenge, and often results in a limited
knowledge of topics and concepts (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). The traditional model of
asynchronous distance learning was innovative for the time; however, the expansion of
technology has led to a new model in learning, one that blends face-to-face instruction with
synchronous and asynchronous learning.
The Rise of e-Learning
From its roots in distance learning, the field of blended learning grew to combine face-to-
face learning with online learning, or e-Learning. According to Siemens, Gasevic, & Dawson
(2015), the first surge in e-learning (or electronic learning platforms) came about during the early
1990s with the growth of the Internet and the World Wide Web. The second surge of modern
online and blended learning came about during the mid-2000s with the rapid growth of digital
technologies and the widespread use of Learning Management Systems (LMS), email, text,
video conferencing, and discussion boards (Siemens, Gasevic & Dawson, 2015). With all these
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 21
capabilities, distance-learning courses became increasingly popular in higher education for a
blend of on-campus and off-campus learning, known as blended learning (Lust, Juarez, Collazo,
Elen & Clarebout, 2012; Siemens, Gasevic & Dawson, 2015). From the beginnings of e-
Learning in higher education, we now see the emergence of blended learning environments in K-
12 classrooms, with projections that within the next two years, fifty percent of all high school
courses will be delivered either through a blended model, or completely online (Christenson,
Horn & Johnson, 2008).
The Socio-constructivist Theory of Learning
According to Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, and Haag (1995), the popularity of
blended learning environments has brought forth the need for new instructional practices
grounded in the social-constructivist teachings of Dewey (1929), Piaget (1976), and Vygotsky
(1978). The pedagogy of blended learning instruction is based on the concept that learning is
constructed through social interactions with others, as a collaborative effort to engage in
exploration, inquiry, and critical thinking processes (Anderson & Dron, 2011; Hall, 2007; Swan,
Garrison & Richardson, 2009). According to Hall (2007), learners use previous knowledge, or
knowledge foundations, to interact with the environment and make meaning of new concepts.
To add on, von Glasersfeld (1992) states that as learners personally construct meaning, they can
share their interpretations with others, and become active in the learning process.
Being active in the learning process can be a result of making meaning by independent
learning, through the use of written text and multimedia tools, or by engaging in face-to-face,
directed learning from teachers and peers. According to Hall (2007), socio-constructivist
learning can be both direct and indirect, and can occur as a result of interactions with mediatory
tools that help facilitate learning, or by interactions with others. This concept is expanded in
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 22
Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning that states we use mediatory tools to express our thinking
through the use of language and writing. Moreover, we use social interactions with others to
develop our thinking, thereby deepening our learning experiences.
In presenting the Community of Inquiry framework, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer
(2000) theorized that the social aspects of learning are crucial elements in the educational
experience, and that we use these social interactions for deeper learning. In their theory, they
state that learning occurs in the community, through the interactions of social presence, cognitive
presence and teaching presence. Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005) expand this theory to say
that the ability to be involved in asynchronous learning, and sustain discourse, is derived from a
skill known as teaching presence.
Teaching presence involves the ability to sustain and facilitate discussions, provide
feedback, and establish a culture of inquiry that integrates critical thinking and problem solving
(Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001). It is also a two-pronged responsibility that includes
course design and facilitation. In reference to course design, teaching presence denotes the
design of meaningful experiences and the careful selection of materials to organize topics,
activities, and assessments. The facilitation of the course refers to the ability to drive discussions
towards deeper learning by communicating with the online community by providing general
information and feedback (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000).
A second element referred to in the Community of Inquiry (CoI) is the term social
presence, which means the ability to project one’s personal characteristics into the online
community, and be seen as a “real person.” The third element referred to in the CoI is cognitive
presence, which is identified as the ability for a member of the online community to construct
meaning through sustained communication with peers. Together, these three elements can
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 23
support deeper learning by enhancing the educational experience in online courses through the
socio-constructivist approach theorized in the Community of Inquiry framework (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Elements of an Educational Experience
Note. Community of Inquiry figure taken from Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000.
The origins of social-constructivist learning can be seen in blended learning
environments through the practice of face-to-face discussions, posts on asynchronous discussion
boards, and group presentations that highlight project-based learning lessons (Dole, Bloom, &
Kowalske, 2016; Warschauer, 1997). Swan, Garrison, and Richardson (2009) state that although
much of the research related to the CoI focuses on single presences, instead of the framework as
a whole, there is hope that future research will combine to study the inclusive model. As for the
three elements that make up the learning experience, Swan, Garrison and Richardson state that
teaching presence cannot be neglected as it is of critical importance in successful online learning
courses.
As instructors move forward to develop 21
st
Century skills in the classroom, it is
important that learning tasks be designed with multiple opportunities for social interactions.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 24
These opportunities help students to build 21
st
Century skills through communicating ideas that
are essential to problem solving, critical thinking, and independent thinking (Hall, 2007). The
socio-constructivist model used in Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s Community of Inquiry
framework (2000) supports blended learning instruction by engaging learners as active partners
in deeper learning, instead of passive recipients of factual knowledge, with surface level learning
(Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013).
In the following sections I will look at the current state of blended learning and discuss
how a social-constructivist pedagogy that is focused on social interactions, can be used to
promote critical thinking, deep analysis, foundational knowledge, and lifelong learning skills.
What is more, I will discuss how blended learning can be used as tool for overcoming the
opportunity gap and developing the skill set of underserved students (Getting Smart, 2018;
Milner, 2010; Madaus & Russell, 2010; Wagner, 2014).
Current State of Blended Learning
Developments in the field of blended learning are changing rapidly with an increase in
technologies for Learning Management Systems (LMS), communication tools, and social media
platforms (Anderson, 2009; Lewis &Allan, 2004; Skrypnyk, Joksimovic, Kovanovic, Dawson,
Gasevic & Siemens 2015). Widespread advances in synchronous and asynchronous technologies
provide blended learning with the potential to create equitable learning opportunities that
combine the social aspects of face-to-face instruction, with the rigorous instructional practices
found in online learning and distance education.
However, despite the promise of blended learning, Skrypnyk et al. (2015) state that there
is a lack of empirical research on new theories for blended learning instruction, and most of the
instructional design and practice that is used in blended learning is based on traditional pedagogy
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 25
found in face-to-face instruction, and distance education. Skrypnyk et al.’s meta-analysis goes
on to state that most of the primary scholarship in blended learning has been focused around
single study designs used to improve practice. Drysdale, Graham, Spring, and Halverson (2013)
suggest that there is a need for research that summarizes the experiences of the teacher during the
adoption of a blended learning model, and focuses around the practices of course design and
teaching presence, which is the intent of this study. Given that there are limitations in the
availability of empirical research, I will continue to review the literature, reports, and meta-
analysis, found in the body of blended learning research. Moreover, I will explore the themes of
blended learning effectiveness, practice, and pedagogy.
Blended Learning Effectiveness
Although student-centered pedagogy has shown to be effective in recapturing student
engagement and promoting school connectedness (McCabe & O’Connor, 2004; Milner, 2010),
there is still little research, and therefore limited generalizations, about the effectiveness of
blended learning instruction. One challenge with generalizability is the lack of consistency
between primary studies and a clear definition of what constitutes blended learning instruction
(Skrypnyk et al., 2015). Skrypnyk et al. expand to say that the second challenge is that there are
differing opinions on what constitutes effective academic achievement.
For instance, a study by Bernard, Borokhovski, Schmid, Tamim, and Abrami (2014)
concluded that using blended learning instruction for communication, presentation, and research,
had a positive effect on student achievement, and yielded better results than traditional face-to-
face instruction in a brick-and-mortar classroom. Conversely, a similar study by Schmid,
Bernard, Borokhovski, et al. (2014) concluded that using blended learning to present course
content and communicate with students yielded a decrease in student achievement, compared to
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 26
traditional face-to-face learning. Skrypnyk et al. (2015) pointed out that although the studies
were similar, the lack of a clear definition of blended learning instruction, and effectiveness as it
relates to student achievement, have led to the inability to derive generalizations about the
effectiveness of blended learning instruction.
Despite the controversy, those in the field of education policy and administration are
particularly interested in learning about the effectiveness of blended learning, as there is a
potential impact on student achievement, course offerings, and the allocation of limited resources
(Skrypnyk et al., 2015). Much of the criticism surrounding blended learning focuses around the
allocation of resources and the perspective that students in blended learning classes receive
additional time, materials, and resources that are not always provided in traditional face-to-face
classes. In blended learning environments students engage in socio-constructivist learning
practices, including student- student, student- teacher, and student- content interactions that
allow learners to make meaning of information along with their peers (Bernard et al., 2014).
Whereas in traditional classrooms, teachers often present information via lectures, leaving
students to interpret, and make meaning of the information on their own. A meta-analysis of
various studies comparing face-to-face and blended learning practices indicated greater gains in
student achievement for blended learning, however the causality is uncertain, and Skrypnyk et al.
(2015) posed that other factors need to be considered before concluding the effectiveness of
blended learning models.
Definition of Blended Learning
As previously stated in the review of literature, there is a challenge in generalizing
research on blended learning due to inconsistencies in practice, and the lack of a clear definition
of blended learning. The origins of blended learning are wrapped up in the practices of distance
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 27
learning, e-Learning, and online learning, along with more traditional teaching methods typically
found in brick-and-mortar classrooms. As schools began to prepare students for the 21
st
Century,
computers, document cameras, interactive whiteboards, and Internet ready devices were
introduced into classrooms. Schools trained teachers in a technology-rich environment that
included the use of electronic tools to support learning tasks while maintaining the traditional
teacher’s role as the dispenser of knowledge.
During this time, institutes of higher learning began to put more and more content online
making it available for the distance learning community. Teachers created courses that allowed
them to share the information via written documents, videos, and discussion boards. This time
noted the shift from using technology as an instructional tool, to using the tool to teach students
through an online curriculum. Teachers posted the content online, and students were supposed to
learn it either asynchronously, or along with other students in a synchronous class.
At the turn of the century, the majority of students participating in online learning were
enrolled in higher education courses. In 1999, there were approximately 800,000 American
students enrolled in online classes, and by 2011, that number had expanded to over 2 million
students (Horn & Staker, 2011). Online classes and virtual learning were growing at a rapid
pace; however, the model was not suited for all students. At the onset, brick-and-mortar schools
used online classes to create credit-recovery labs and remediation programs that would help
provide access to classes that would not regularly be offered on campus. These types of classes
would typically be used as independent study courses that included long reading passages with
quizzes at the end of each section. The coursework was perceived to be passive, and unengaging
to students, making it difficult to pass the course without direct student- teacher interactions to
support learning (Horn & Staker, 2011).
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 28
As programs grew, a small number of schools began to include blended learning practices
in to mainstream programming, and not just for credit-recovery or remediation. From that, a
hybrid model of traditional brick-and-mortar instruction grew into a blended learning model that
included first-time learning using an online curriculum that allowed for control over time, place,
path, and pace. The personalization of allowing for control over where students learned, what
pace they used, and how they chose to learn, is what made blended learning different from
traditional technology-rich instructional practices. The control over the curriculum is what shifts
the pedagogical practice from teacher-centered to student-centered, and what makes blended
different from traditional teaching methods.
Blended Learning Pedagogy and Instructional Practices
Blended learning pedagogy refers to the inquiry-based tasks that are supported by
student-centered learning practices that foster agency, and independent thinking skills that
prepare students for college, career, and civic-life (Bower, et al., 2015). A review of the literature
on blended learning pedagogy and instructional practice identifies three different interactions
that effect blended learning practice: student-teacher, student-content, and student-student, which
is reflective of teaching presence in blended learning environments (Bernard et al., 2014; Means,
Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013). Student-teacher learning is a reference to synchronous
instruction in a face-to-face model, whereas student-content is in reference to asynchronous
learning found in distance education. According to the meta-analysis by Skrypnyk et al. (2015),
the practices identified in student-teacher, and student-content, were said to be similar to those
found in traditional brick-and-mortar models and distance learning, however they were not
clearly identified in the study. Similarly, research on the emerging field of student-student
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 29
learning is limited, and although it has been recognized to affect practice, the specific skills were
not discussed, or identified (Means et al., 2013).
Another challenge associated with blended learning practice is found in the interpretation
of study findings. In reference to the two studies previously mentioned, Schmid et al.’s (2014)
study concluded that students with high intensity face-to-face instruction and low intensity online
instruction reported greater satisfaction with the course, and in juxtaposition, Bernard et al.’s
(2014) study concluded that greater satisfaction was reported with low intensity face-to-face
instruction, and high intensity online instruction. As mentioned earlier, the challenge in citing
empirical research that supports effective teacher practice is rooted in the limited primary
research, and lack of independent theories on blended learning (Skrypnyk et al., 2015).
Although there is an inability to make generalizations about teacher practice, Anderson (2003)
concludes that courses that offer multiple opportunities for student-teacher, student-content, and
student-student learning, are reported to yield greater satisfaction with the learning experience.
As mentioned in the previous sections, blended learning pedagogy is not yet based on
sufficient empirical evidence (Skrypnyk et al., 2015). Much of the current practice is taken from
traditional face-to-face and distance learning models, with the inclusion of expanded
opportunities for online learning through discussion boards, multimedia tools, and
communication platforms. Mears et al. (2013) concluded that there were different pedagogical
approaches suited for different outcomes, and that online learning allowed learners to develop a
strong foundation in content knowledge, while face-to-face learning was better suited to develop
soft skills, such as those identified as 21
st
Century skills of critical thinking, collaboration,
communication, and creativity (P21, 2009; Wagner, 2014).
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 30
What is more, research on effective blended learning practices by Stacey and Gerbic
(2009) shows that the merging of face-to-face discussion with online discussion boards produces
the richest learning experience, as it allows a voice for students who might not typically speak
out in face-to-face experiences. However, Graham (2013) states that ultimately, the role of the
teacher is the greatest factor in developing students’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the
course. The next section will expand on this statement by providing details on how the teacher
can facilitate discussions and help students in blended learning environments to construct
meaning through engaging in inquiry and reflection to develop deeper learning.
Blended Learning and Socio-Constructivist Practices
As previously stated, interactions between students, teachers, and content are at the core
of meaningful blended learning practices (Bernard et al. 2014; Means et al., 2013). As learners
participate in these interactions, they engage with others to make meaning of their world and
construct knowledge based on their experiences. Teacher presence plays a critical role in
facilitating this process both during face-to-face instruction and through conversations with
students using online tools for communication and collaboration.
In student-centered pedagogy the role of the teacher shifts from dispenser of knowledge,
to that of a facilitator who helps coach the learner through inquiry-based problems (Dole, Bloom,
& Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose, 2001; Rodriguez, 2012). The teacher guides the learner to
question big ideas, events, or phenomenon on topics of choice, and gives a voice to each student
based on their desired learning experience.
Teachers can use the principles of Socio-Cultural learning to design student-centered
blended learning courses that allow students to construct knowledge together as they conduct
research on primary sources, historical artifacts, scientific phenomenon, and naturally occurring
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 31
events. Students can work individually or in groups to make meaning, question previously
learned facts, and reconcile new facts with previous learning. As learning evolves, students can
present new information and reflect on the process as they construct new meaning. In addition,
the use of technology in blended learning environments allows students to research, collaborate,
present their learning, and receive feedback from peers and teachers with ease, thus increasing
student presence in blended learning courses.
Although research on the topic is limited, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001) state
that course design, and the facilitation of inquiry and productive discourse, leads to greater
achievement in a blended learning environment. In support of this idea, Zhao, Lei, Yan, and Tan
(2005) state that outcomes in distance learning environments are lower when instructor
involvement is low and higher when instructor involvement is high, once again lending to the
topic of teaching presence.
According to findings by Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005), the establishment of a
strong teaching presence not only leads to greater satisfaction with the course, but leads to an
increase in student presence resulting in deeper learning, which is the desired result of higher-
learning institutions and workforce developers (P21, 2009; Wagner, 2014). Additionally,
Skrypnyk et al. (2015), state that teaching presence plays a critical role in blended learning
environments, and should continue to be studied, along with the role of the teacher.
In reviewing the research on effective blended learning practices and student-centered
course design, a common theme in the literature is the potential for blended learning to narrow
the opportunity gap by providing equitable access to rigorous content that is available through
synchronous and asynchronous models. This leads into the next section on equity and the
potential of blended learning to help close the opportunity gap (Milner, 2010).
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 32
Equitable access to the curriculum through blended learning models
In the following section, I will discuss the practice of institutional racism that is
maintained through the practice of tracking students, and watering down the curriculum (Burris
& Welner, 2005; Milner, 2010). I will highlight the challenges associated with providing
equitable access to rigorous curriculum, and the factors that deny access. Lastly, I will end with
the reasons why it is essential for students to gain access to social capital in order to access the
global economy.
Traditionally, brick-and-mortar schools use a master schedule to develop and plan course
offerings each year. Course offerings are planned using pre-determined pathways to graduation
that are determined by each Local Education Agency (LEA), or school district. It is up to each
LEA to submit courses to the College Board for course approval and integration into the master
schedule. Traditionally, schools have developed lower track pathways to graduation, mid-track
pathways to career and technological education (CTE), and high-track pathways to colleges and
university (Burris & Welner, 2005).
This pattern of tracking students speaks to the larger issue of systemic racism that keeps
already marginalized students from gaining access to higher track classes that provide richer
opportunities to use academic language an engage in deeper discourse (Milner, 2010). Based on
standardized tests given as early as 3
rd
grade, students are identified as being below standard, and
are placed in remediation classes that offer a watered-down curriculum with little chance of an
opportunity to rejoin mainstream classes (Booher-Jennings, 2005; Burris & Welner, 2005;
Kellaghan & Greaney, 1992; Oakes & Guiton, 1995; Milner, 2010; Shepard & Smith, 1998).
Burris & Welner (2005) state that in urban high schools, African Americans, Latinos, and
students of lower Socio-Economic Status (SES) are traditionally overrepresented in the lower-
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 33
track pathways. Lower-track pathways often require students to take remedial class that are
unengaging and offer less rigorous curriculum. In addition, master schedule does not allow
lower-track students the opportunity to enroll in some of the high-engagement offerings in the
mid or high-track due to limited course availability (Burris & Welner, 2005).
Many high schools use web-based School Information Systems (SIS) help with master
schedule development by identifying the number of students enrolled in each grade and
calculating the number of required courses using pre-determined graduation pathways. For
example, freshman students take a predictable course path of English 9, Geography, Physical
Education, Algebra, Biology, and an Elective class. For students who are not academically ready
for Algebra or Biology, remedial courses are often recommend on a lower-track pathway.
Schools will then use master scheduling to determine the number of required course
offerings, and therefore the number of teachers that are needed to teach each course. In some
cases, it may be that extra Math or English classes may be required, which can take away from
the number of high-engaging elective courses (e.g., Music, Dance, Leadership, Oceanography,
Graphic Design) or Advanced Placement (AP) classes offered at a school. This narrowing of the
curriculum denies access to a broad range of opportunities for students. According to Burris and
Welner (2005) and Milner (2010), achievement flows from opportunities and the narrowing the
opportunity gap starts with expanding the curriculum and providing rigorous, engaging
opportunities for all students.
One way to expand the curriculum is to include online and blended course options that
help to alleviate the master schedule challenge and allows for greater enrollment numbers and
expanded course offerings in schools (Rogers, Graham, Rasmussen, Campbell, & Ure, 2003;
White, Ramirez, Smith, & Plonowski, 2010). Blended learning can provide student-centered
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 34
learning opportunities for students in an inclusive environment with greater educational access to
equitable experiences (Bower, et al., 2015). It can support students who may need to take classes
outside of the traditional courses offered at schools due to time restraints, or students with
geographical challenges, difficulties with childcare, work schedule challenges, and people who
just cannot physically be in class for one reason or another (Cunningham, 2014). In addition,
blended learning environments offer flexibility in lesson pacing and personalized learning
practices that support a student’s ability to have voice and choice in how they learn (Horn &
Stacker, 2011; Patrick, Kennedy, and Powell, 2013). In closing, blended learning is modeled on
student-centered learning practices that will be further expanded in the next section.
Student-Centered Learning
Student-centered practices were previously mentioned in an earlier section with reference
to the pedagogical approach to blended learning, however in this section, the focus will be on the
equity aspects of student-centered learning. For years, high-stakes testing and scripted curricula
negatively impacted student engagement and led to teacher-centered practices that conformed to
the demands of standardized testing (Dole, Bloom, & Kowalske, 2016; Grant & Hill, 2006,
Madaus & Russel, 2010). Students sat in classes, passively waiting as empty vessels for teachers
to fill them with knowledge and facts that could be repeated back during tests and exams (Dole,
Bloom, & Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose, 2001; Rodriguez, 2012). Fullan and Langworthy
(2013) stated that years of teacher-centered practices have caused students to disengage from
school, and disconnect from the expectations of the school culture. Students were able to recite
surface level knowledge; however, there was a lack of deep understanding of topics, and an
inability to critically analyze information, and solve problems using the transfer of information.
(P21, 2009). Teacher-centered practices prevented underserved students from accessing the
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 35
deeper concepts within the curriculum, therefore failing to provide students with equitable access
to the curriculum.
The Partnership for 21
st
Century Learning (2009) stated that over time, the gap in skills
and knowledge became evident in the workforce as employees were asked to participate in
shared tasks, such as group projects and presentations. Students leaving K-12 education were
not prepared for the demands of the workplace, which now ˜Heeding the call of workforce
leaders and education policy reformers to move away from teacher-centered practices, the
educational pendulum began to swing back towards a student-centered learning model that was
based on inquiry and active engagement in learning (McCabe & O’Conner, 2014).
The practice of a student-centered learning is rooted in constructivism, and has its
developmental origins in the learning theories of Dewey (1929), Piaget (1976), and Vygotsky
(1978). The pedagogy of student-centered practices includes critical thinking, problem solving,
independent learning, and communicating ideas to gain new knowledge. Constructivist practices
assert that students have a voice in learning and are actively engaged in determining their
learning path. Student-centered practices aim to help students co-create knowledge through
social interactions with peers, and sharing between group members (Ozdamli, 2012). Although
some teachers intuitively engage in student-centered practice, others, who endured many years of
teacher-centered pedagogy, are not as familiar and do not have a deep understanding of how to
enact it (Graham, 2012).
A study by McCabe and O’Connor (2014) investigated the practice of student-centered
learning and sought to answer questions about teachers’ and students’ understandings about
student-centered learning, the role of the teacher in a student-centered approach, and the
strategies that work best for engaging students in student-centered learning. The researchers
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 36
conducted a qualitative study in which they interviewed and observed teachers as they engaged
in student-centered lessons and activities, which was then followed up by student focus group
interviews. The study participants were part of a purposeful sample that included members from
one particular department at the Institute of Technology in Dundalk, Ireland.
McCabe and O’Connor (2014) proposed that the features fundamental to student-centered
learning are students who: (a) take an active responsibility for learning, (b) are proactive in
managing the learning experience, and (c) seek to independently construct knowledge, alongside
their teachers, who facilitate the learning. They expand to say that a successful shift in student-
centered practice requires that the roles must be understood by both students and teachers, and
that the shift in practice can have both its challenges and rewards (Attard, Di Loio, Geven, &
Santa, 2010, McCabe and O’Connor, 2014). McCabe and Connor maintain that it is important
for teachers to be confident in their abilities, and be ready to make the shift. Teachers should
clearly understand the impact of their new roles as learning facilitators, and steer away from
traditional roles as disseminators of knowledge (Dole, Bloom, & Kowalske, 2016, Fischer &
Rose, 2001; Rodriguez, 2012).
The findings of McCabe and O’Connor (2014) indicate that teachers in their study did not
receive any formal training in student-centered practices prior to their participation in the study.
A few teachers had read literature on student centered instructional practices, but were unaware
that there was a title for the approach. During the study, teachers and students were provided
with an introduction session where they learned about the rationale, objectives, and pedagogy of
a student-centered approach (McCabe and O’Connor, 2014).
There were some obstacles along the way as students moved from passive to active-
learners. Students expressed that they had to work much harder, and some were even upset that
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 37
teachers were not doing their job, as the master of learning (McCabe and O’Connor, 2014). The
concept of being a learning facilitator was challenging and new to some teachers. The change in
pedagogy presented a challenge, as it frustrated some students who did not understand the
learning goals and objectives for student-centered learning (McCabe & O’Connor, 2014). It took
some time to acclimate to the new practice; however, teachers learned some additional ways to
support student-centered learning as a result.
McCabe and O’Connor (2014) stated their findings for best practices are to provide
students with timely feedback that guides them in deeper learning. This can be done when
teachers have a strong knowledge of the discipline and a deep understanding of the concepts and
connected practices. If students are to engage in autonomous learning, they have to be engaged
in the material, and the content has to be relevant to their context. Lastly, McCabe and
O’Conner contend that students must engage in reflective learning that challenges them to
critically think about concepts, and collaborate with peers to elicit feedback and challenge
understandings.
In a similar study Dole, Bloom, and Kowalske (2016) examined the effects that an
intensive one-week field experience had on a teacher’s ability to transform from teacher-centered
to student- centered teaching practices. The study participants were involved in a blended
learning module where they engaged in 12 hours of an online methods course aimed to change
perspective from teacher-centered to student-centered learning. The online module was followed
up by an in-person activity where teachers were immersed in one week of student-centered
instruction using a project-based learning method. According to Dole, Bloom, and Kowalske it
took an overall time of two years of implementation to see the lasting effects of the learning
experiences.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 38
The study was qualitative in nature and utilized a structured online interview design.
Although 164 teachers participated in the online course, only 50 completed the online interview.
Of those, 36 completed the entire structured online interview, and four indicated a willingness to
participate in the study. The findings of the study were based on the data gathered from four
self-selected study participants.
Similar to the study by McCabe and O’Connor (2014), the context of Dole, Bloom, and
Kowalske’s (2016) study states that in order for students to develop 21
st
Century skills, they need
to be able to engage in investigative problem-solving, evaluate their progress, and communicate
effectively with others. The authors state that skills such as critical thinking and self-directed
learning are essential for developing the deep learning that leads to the retention and application
of knowledge (Dole, Bloom, and Kowalske, 2016).
In contrast to McCabe and O’Connor (2014), a study by Dole, Bloom, and Kowalske
(2016) examined at the impact of student-centered practices, and learned whether changes were
evident after an intensive one-week field experience in project-based learning. Once the data
were examined, researchers determined that there was a shift in the structure of the classroom, as
students took ownership of the learning, and were given a voice and a choice in what and how
they learned. Additionally, researchers noted that teachers reported improvements to the
classroom environment and culture. Since the role of the teacher had changed from the keeper of
knowledge, to the facilitator of knowledge, there was a strengthening of the rapport, and a level
of mutual trust was established between teachers and students (Dole, Bloom, and Kowalske,
2016). Lastly, the findings of the study reflected that some of the participants expressed personal
growth in their ability to collaborate with peers, and in their leadership capabilities. Teachers
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 39
reported designing their own units, and providing professional development and best practice
strategies to their colleagues in the field.
Although two years is a considerable amount of time to change practices and see the
lasting effects of project-based learning, it pales in the number of years that were spend focused
on teacher-centered learning practices. As new studies continue to emerge, we can learn from
the data reported by teachers, and build on the positive effects noted. Course designers can
continue to improve their teaching presence in blended learning environments by using student-
centered strategies, such as the ones noted in this study, to foster a culture of inquiry and build
deeper understandings through class discussions, collaborative projects, and reflective
presentations of learning (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000).
A review of literature found some common frameworks that additionally support the shift
to student-centered instruction, particularly in blended-learning environments. Findings by Lai
(1993) and Ozdamli (2012) each state that student-centered approaches in computer-supported,
blended learning environments, allows students to be active participants in learning. Ozdamli’s
(2012) framework states that students engage in social interactions with their peers during online
and face-to-face discussions that help them to construct information by collaborating with others.
Lai’s (1993) framework reasons that the learner has to be given the opportunity to ask questions,
make decisions, and solve-problems through engaging in risk-free discussions with peers who
are in their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).
Lai’s (1993) framework goes on to state, that computer-aided instruction is orientated
towards individual learners, and that it has the potential to decrease social interactions and
promote isolation. He added that computer-aided learning could be used for product-orientated
goals, rather than process-orientated. However, it is interesting to note that Lai’s framework was
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 40
written in 1993, at a time when computers were just beginning to be widely used in classrooms,
and before the rise of social media platforms and global communication. The technology
advancements over the last 25 years have resulted in the ability to communicate with peers near
and far, to ask questions in real-time, and seek answers together, as a process-orientated strategy
for learning. Although Lai’s framework provided a good basis for the historical shift to student-
centered learning, the information contained in the article was outdated and did not reflect
current practices in blended learning instruction.
In closing, the studies mentioned above reflect a shift in pedagogy towards student-
centered practices that develop independent learners as critical thinkers who work together to
construct meaning both independently and with peers. These student-centered practices align
with the emerging field of blended learning pedagogy to provide a favorable environment that is
inclusive of underserved students. The student-centered design of blended learning helps to
engage underserved students in meaningful learning, and increases access to an expanded
curriculum, with opportunities for social mobility and access to resources (Milner, 2010). The
inclusiveness of blended learning practices favor opportunities for students to explore an event or
action, integrate their own funds of knowledge with any new understandings gained by peer
interactions, and to reflect and reconcile new learning as they build understanding and expand
their social capital (Yosso, 2005). According to Bordieu (2011) and Yosso (2005), social capital
is gained through access and understanding of economic resources and social networks that are
valued by those in power. The inclusive, student-centered practices of blended learning present
an opportunity to bridge the gap and allow underserved students to gain social capital and access
doors that were previously closed to them (Bordieu, 2011; Milner, 2010). Blended learning
environments help provide students with equitable access to the curriculum by involving them in
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 41
meaningful student-centered learning experiences that focus on engagement, rigorous discourse,
expanded course offerings, access to experts in the field of teaching and learning, increased
access to economic resources, and overall gains in social capital. These experiences can help
underserved students to gain social capital by connecting them to people in power and
organizations with the potential to offer economic resources and employment opportunities
(Yosso, 2005).
Summary
Years of standardized, high-stakes testing led to the perceived disempowerment of
teachers, as they were subjected to the widely adopted practice of teaching to the test (Dole,
Bloom, and Kowalske, 2016; Grant & Hill, 2006; Madaus & Russell, 2010). As the focus on test
taking skills increased, educators began to implement teacher-centered pedagogies that solidified
their role as the dispenser of knowledge, while students sat in seats as empty vessels waiting to
be filled (Rodriguez, 2012). The subsequent practice of emphasizing reading and math skills,
over other skills and cultural competencies, led to a narrowing of the curriculum and
disengagement from learning (Belfanz, Herzog, & McIver, 2007; Fullen and Languworthy,
2013; Milner, 2010; Yosso, 2005).
For decades, the common practices in schools were teacher-centered strategies and triage
models that focused on learning deficits, rather than acquired skills (Kellaghan & Greaney, 1992;
Booher-Jennings, 2005). The opportunity gap continued to widen, as underserved students were
placed in remedial classes that offered no opportunity for engagement in critical-thinking or
problem-solving strategies (Burris & Welner, 2005; Milner, 2010). Students were denied access
to experts in the field of education, and rigorous coursework that would prepare them to compete
in the global economy (P21, 2009; Milner, 2010).
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 42
Then, after years of passive learning practices, came the call to action from institutes of
higher learning and workforce developers (P21, 2009; Wagner 2014). There was a shift in
pedagogical practice and students were asked to become active participants in learning. The
vehicle for the shift came through student-centered approaches with roots in social-constructivist
learning theories of Dewey (1929), Piaget (1976), and Vygotsky (1978), and later through the
Community of Inquiry framework developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000). The
adoption of new state standards in 2010, required students to engage in collaborative learning
experiences where they think critically, critique others, and employ communication strategies
that will allow them to compete globally (CCSS, 2010; P21, 2009; Wagner, 2014).
One of the tools used in student-centered learning is blended learning instruction.
Blended learning is defined as instruction that is delivered both face-to-face, and online, with
student choice in time, place, pace and/or path. The movement towards blended learning shifts
the focus from seat time, to the mastery of skills and competencies (Bower et al., 2015). It is a
flexible instructional model that allows students to have opportunities for voice and choice in
learning.
Although research in the field is limited, there have been single case studies, reports, and
meta-analysis on the body of research in blended learning. Researchers suggest that the body of
work should continue to be studied and new research that examines the role of the teacher, and
teaching presence should be studied (Drysdale et al., 2013; Halverson et al., 2014; Skrypnyk, et
al., 2015).
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 43
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
In 2010, there were 1.5 million students participating in K-12 blended learning
environments, and by 2014, the number had increased to 2.7 million (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
Schools across the nation, particularly in California, are looking for ways to bridge the
opportunity gap and engage students in making the transition away from traditional brick-and-
mortar classrooms to online and blended learning environments (Watson, Pape, Murin, Gemin,
& Vashaw, 2014). The purpose of this study was to explore and gather data on teachers’
perceptions about their role in blended learning classroom, along with their pedagogical
approach to instruction, and the instructional strategies that were used to deliver the curriculum.
The findings have the potential to inform future practice and identify potential areas for
professional learning that will help to improve blended learning practice.
This chapter provides an overview of the qualitative methods, instrumentation, and data
collection approaches that were used to study the pedagogical approach and perceptions of high
school teachers in blended learning environments. The section begins by providing my rationale
for choosing a qualitative method of inquiry, and listing the research questions that drove this
study. It was followed with details on the selection criteria that was used, how I gained access to
the participants, and the processes that were involved in developing the interview protocols.
Finally, the section closes with a discussion that details the approach I took in data collection and
my strategies for data analysis.
Research Design and Methods
According to Merriam & Tisdell (2016), the purpose of qualitative research is to
understand how people interpret their experiences and construct their world. For this purpose, I
chose to engage in a qualitative inquiry method that will lead to shared understandings, and help
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 44
to explain a particular phenomenon. I chose this study because I wanted to learn and understand
the pedagogical approach and perceptions of high school teachers in blended learning
environments. In particular, I wanted to understand how teaching presence influenced
pedagogical practices. I developed the study around the conceptual framework of social-
constructivist Community of Inquiry theory by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000), and
sought to answer the following questions:
1. How do high school teachers perceive their roles in blended learning environments?
2. How do high school teachers describe their pedagogical approach to blended learning
instruction to include teaching presence?
Based on the questions and goals of the study, I sought information about teachers’
perceptions that were ascertained by interviewing teachers and asking direct questions about
their perceptions and feelings towards blended learning environments. I sought to identify the
pedagogical approaches that high school teachers described as being useful in blended learning
environments and how those strategies were used during day-to-day instruction.
Sample and Site Selection
The sampling method I used was rooted in the elements of purposeful sampling.
According to Patton (2002), purposeful sampling is used to select participants who possess
attributes that are desirable to a study. The participants selected for my sample were high school
teachers from several local Southern California school districts. The initial set of teachers were
identified by their administrators as being reputable blended learning teachers, and the sample
expanded based on peer recommendations. From there, study participants identified colleagues
that possessed the desired reputable qualities of blended learning instructors. In this case, it was
high school teachers, who were known by their peers to have shifted to student-centered
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 45
pedagogy, and who used computer mediated learning tools to provide both synchronous and
asynchronous instruction for a period longer than two years.
According to Merriam & Tisdell (2016), a unique sample is used to gather rich data that
describes a phenomenon and sheds light on the topic being studied. Based on recommendations,
I used administrator recommendations to recruit a few teachers that fit the selection criteria of
reputable blended learning instructors with more than two years of experience, and by expanding
the sample using the snowball, or networking approach, I was able to leverage the knowledge of
the current participants to refer additional colleagues who fit the sample criteria (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This was important to the sample because not all high school teachers fit
selection criteria, and snowball sampling allowed me to identify and include participants who
were known by their peers to possess the desired qualities and exemplified the characteristics of
the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Access/Entry
In order to identify desirable candidates, I reached out to my network of administrators
and teachers to seek recommendations for potential study participants who were reputable
blended learning instructors. Once I received the names of a few potential participants, I sent an
email to explain the purpose of my study and requested their participation. After each of the
participants agreed, I followed up with an email to schedule either a video call or an in-person
interview. Most participants selected to be interviewed via video call; however, I did conduct
two in-person interviews.
The formal consent forms for interviews were developed using the USC informed
consent template. I emailed each participant a copy of the consent form, and then followed up
with the participant to address any questions or concerns, and gain consent prior to the interview.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 46
All participants were assured that their participation was voluntary, and that any names,
including the name of the school, was protected through the use of a pseudonym (Glesne, 2015).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The purpose of this study is to seek answers that reveal additional information about
teachers’ perceptions about their roles in blended learning environments and the influence of
presence on pedagogical practices, if any. I collected data from nine teacher interviews based on
the research questions and conceptual framework. Each interview lasted between thirty to forty
minutes.
Interviews. The protocols I used for the interview were guided by the research questions and
socio-constructivist learning framework. As per Merriam & Tisdell (2016), the interviews
followed a semi-structured format with a logical sequence of establishing rapport, and then
asking about blended learning in general. The interview questions digressed to discuss the
teachers’ perceived role in a blended learning environment and the pedagogical approach to
blended learning instruction and teaching presence. As I moved through the interview, I asked
additional probing interview questions to inquire about the relationship between blended learning
environments, equity, access, student achievement, and the role that the teacher plays in
facilitating the process (Appendix B).
Data Analysis
Once the data was collected, I used a first-cycle open coding approach to identify
common themes within the data corpus. With that, a priori codes that reflected the
predetermined themes such as, socio-constructivist learning theory, teachers’ perceptions,
blended learning environments, teaching presence, and pedagogy were identified. The a priori
codes identified in the first-cycle open coding were as follows:
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 47
• Definition of blended learning (Horn & Staker, 2011; Skrypnyk et al., 2015)
• Pedagogy, teacher-centered and student-centered (Bower, et al., 2015; Dole, Bloom, &
Kowalske, 2016; Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013)
• Instructional strategies, socio-constructivist (Anderson & Dron, 2011; Garrison,
Anderson, & Archer, 2000: Hall, 2007; Swan, Garrison, & Richardson, 2009)
• Equity and access (Madus & Russell, 2010; Milner, 2010; Wagner, 2014; Yosso, 2005)
• Teaching presence, to include instructional management, course design, building
understanding (Drysdale, Graham, Spring, & Halverson, 2013; Garrison, Anderson, &
Archer, 2000)
Note that the selected a priori codes were taken from words and phrases found within the
literature reviewed, the conceptual framework, and the established research questions.
A second-cycle of coding allowed for the classification and integration the emergent
themes that arose from the extended analysis of the data (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Harding,
2013; Lichtman, 2012). Creswell & Creswell (2017) state that the act of data analysis is a
recursive process that is developed through continued reflection and careful scrutiny of the data.
Therefore, a considerable period of data analysis and reflection was conducted after each review
of the data to ensure that bias was not reflected in the reporting of data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Reliability, Validity, and Positionality in Qualitative Research
In reflecting on my positionality, I designed this study to help me, as a K-12
administrator, better understand the perceived role of the teacher and identify ways in which to
support blended learning instruction. My role as a researcher was guided by my knowledge of
traditional teacher-centered practices, and the emerging shift towards student-centered practices.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 48
Although traditional methods of testing validity and reliability were not used in this
study, alternative qualitative measures described by Creswell & Poth (2013), and Noble & Smith
(2015) were used to ensure the integrity of the study. The methods used for data collection were
safeguarded through the precise collection of data using recording devices and digital
transcription tools that account for bias in data collection procedures, and add to the reliability,
or trustworthiness, of the data collection process (Creswell & Poth, 2013). The nine interviews
resulted in rich descriptions of teacher practice that accurately reflected each participant’s views
and perspectives on blended learning, adding to the truth value, or validity (Noble & Smith,
2015). Together, the methods help to confirm the soundness of the research and the data
findings.
Summary
In closing, the research questions developed for this study sought to inquire about high
school teachers’ perceptions of their role in blended learning environments, and their
pedagogical approach to blended learning instruction, including teaching presence. The
qualitative method of inquiry was supported by the use of teacher interviews that used to collect
rich, thick, descriptive data from a purposeful sample of participating teachers (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015; Creswell & Poth, 2013; Noble & Smith, 2015). As the data were collected, it was
analyzed and coded for trends and patterns in teacher perceptions.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 49
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This chapter presents the data from nine high school teacher interviews and examined
teacher perceptions about their roles in a blended learning environment and the pedagogical
approach to blended learning instruction. This study examined high school teachers from
multiple southern California school districts, and used pseudonyms to protect the confidentiality
of the participants. The initial group of three teachers was identified by administrators as being
reputable blended learning teachers with two or more years’ experience in using blended
learning practices. The qualities that made them reputable blended learning teachers were that
they were known to have shifted towards a student-centered pedagogy, and used computer
mediated learning tools to provide both synchronous and asynchronous instruction for a period
of at least two years. From there, teachers identified reputable colleagues who fit the study
criteria. The study focused around each teacher’s blended learning practices, including their
instructional approach, and perceptions about their role. This dissertation also addressed how, at
the time of this study, there was very little research on high school teachers’ perceptions about
their role in a blended learning classroom. However, since this study began, there was a world-
wide Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic that caused schools to close down in March 2020,
leading to the emergency implementation of distance learning for an extended period ranging
from six to seventeen months. The Chapter 5 discussion will include implications and
recommendations for research that resulted from this study, along with implications and findings
from the emergency response protocols that were implemented due to school closures and
emergency implementation of distance learning throughout the State of California.
As discussed in previous chapters, the scope of research in blended learning instruction
had been limited to single case studies and meta-analysis. Recommendations by Drysdale et al.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 50
(2013), Halverson et al. (2014), and Skrypnyk et al. (2015) indicated that research on the role of
the teacher, and teacher presence in blended learning classrooms should continue to be studied.
Therefore, this study was to contribute to the body of research involving high school teachers’
perceptions about their role in a blended learning classroom and their pedagogical approach to
designing instruction.
Chapter 4 presents data from nine high school teachers (participants) and examined how
they perceived their role as a blended learning instructor, and the pedagogical approach they took
towards implementing blended learning instruction in their individual classrooms. Data were
organized by themes that emerged from the interviews, based on the research questions. The
teachers were selected based on unique attributes (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016) as being reputable
high school teachers who taught in blended learning environments for two years or more, and
were known to have shifted pedagogical practice to student-centered teaching practices. The
qualities that made them reputable blended learning teachers were that they were known to have
shifted towards a student-centered pedagogy, and used computer mediated learning tools to
provide both synchronous and asynchronous instruction for a period of at least two years.
Teacher interviews were conducted using the Zoom platform that supported the ability to record
audio files. Each of the interviews lasted between 30-40 minutes and revealed themes that
emerged from the research questions.
1. How do high school teachers perceive their roles in blended learning environments?
2. How do high school teachers describe their pedagogical approach to blended learning
instruction to include teacher presence?
The high school teachers were asked questions in an interview format that included open-
ended questions using a qualitative methodology that took validity threats, such as researcher
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 51
bias and reactivity, into consideration (Maxwell, 2013). Teachers were asked to provide context
to their environment, and included whether they had experienced any formal or informal training
in blended learning instructional practices. Interview questions associated with research question
1 inquired about the teacher’s role, experience, personal definition, and perceptions about
blended learning instruction. Questions associated with research question 2 inquired about
pedagogy, instructional strategies, lesson design, the differences between traditional face-to-face
instruction and blended learning instruction, if any, and teachers’ perceptions about the potential
for blended learning to provide increased access and opportunity for underserved students
(Bower, et al. 2015). The data presented were based on each teachers’ perception of their role in
a blended learning classroom, what they perceived to be the benefits, and the areas of support
that are needed to narrow the opportunity gap for underserved students (Milner, 2010, Yosso,
2005).
Context of Sites and Participants
The nine high school teachers worked in the core content areas of Science, Math,
English, and History, in grades nine through twelve. Using a snowball method of purposeful
sampling, the teachers were identified by administrators and peers as being reputable instructors,
known to have shifted towards a student-centered pedagogy, and who also had more than two
years in the field of blended learning practice. Table 1 lists the participant’s pseudonym in
alphabetical order, along with each participant’s experience teaching the core subject, and
current high school grade level.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 52
Table 1
Participant Characteristics
First Name Teaching Experience Subject Area HS Grade
Anna 17 years Science 9
th
grade
Christina 9 years Math 11
th
grade
Elizabeth 21 years Science 9
th
grade
Emily 19 years Science 9
th
and 10
th
grade
Jesse 12 years Science 11
th
grade
Joshua 5
years Science 10
th
grade
Kelli 14 years History/English 11
th
grade
Lilly 10 years Math 11
th
and 12
th
grade
Terri 20 years Science 10
th
grade
As a result of the snowball approach, six of the nine participants were science teachers. Three of
them were from the same school; however, the others were from two different schools in
different school districts. The ranges of teaching experience were between five and twenty-one
years. At the time of the interviews, many of the teachers indicated that they had been using
blended learning strategies in their classroom for between 2-5 years. Some indicated that they
felt very comfortable designing lessons, while others indicated that they were pushing
themselves out of their comfort zone by including blended learning as part of regular instruction.
The five teachers from the same school district stated that several years ago they
participated in professional development that included the introduction of blended learning
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 53
practices. The professional development was presented as a district-driven initiative, but in their
opinion, lost steam throughout the school year, as new initiatives were introduced.
All the teachers were considered by administrators and peers to be early-adopters who developed
buy-in, and continued the blended learning practices regardless of outside support or additional
training. During the interview, the teachers described how they sought out resources through
their own networks of educators, YouTube tutorials, and non-district sponsored professional
development opportunities. They described the benefits of using blended-learning tools, such as
students being able to review content at their own pace, and time to interact with the content in
small group discussions during class. Each of the teachers were at differing levels of
implementation, and were willing to share their experiences with blended-learning instruction for
the purpose of this study.
Emergent Themes in Data Findings
The themes that emerged from the data described a salient challenge with the emerging
practice of blended learning instruction. Data collected during the interviews indicated that there
was a lack of coherence in how teachers identified blended learning practice, and how the
content was delivered during online and face-to-face instruction (Skrypnyk et al., 2015). In
comparing the data collected during each of the interviews, the researcher noted the lack of a
clear definition of blended learning, and therefore an inability on the part of teachers to derive
generalizations about blended learning instructional practices. Some teachers understood
blended learning to be associated with a technology-rich classroom, while others noted the shift
towards student-centered practices that allowed for control over time, place, path, and/or pace.
A second theme that emerged from the data were the variable perceptions regarding the
role of the teacher in a blended learning classroom. There were notable differences in the
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 54
manner in which teachers interacted with students during class. Even within the same school,
there were multiple views on teacher-centered practices versus student-centered practices.
During the interview process, teachers reflected on the questions asked, and at times appeared to
question themselves as they reflected on how they might improve towards a gradual release of
responsibility. Throughout the interviews, teachers described their interactions with students in
different ways, both when providing descriptions of face-to-face interactions, and also when they
described how they delivered online content.
The third theme that emerged from the research was the lack of coherence in instructional
practices and delivery models. Some teachers chose to post content online and use class time to
facilitate deeper discussions and extend learning on the topic, while others posted content online,
but chose instead to use class time to allow students to review the content. Part of the reason that
teachers chose to structure the class this way was because some students were unable to access a
device or Wi-Fi at home. Therefore, some teachers chose to provide class time to allow students
to review the materials that were posted online. Teachers who chose this model stated that it was
done in response to the inequities that underserved students experience in accessing technology
at home, and not due intentional course design, or blended learning pedagogical practice. The
effectiveness of this approach was problematic as students who did have access to Wi-Fi were
made to wait for the peers to review the content, and were not able to work at their own pace and
engage in meaningful discussions regarding the content. This practice spoke to the teacher-
centered pedagogy used in many classrooms, and the lingering theme of teachers holding the
pace of the class, and determining when everyone has sufficient time, before allowing students to
move on to the next task in the curriculum sequence.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 55
This leads into the last theme, which was the varying degree in which students were able
to gain access to digital content when they are off the school grounds. In Chapter 2, the Review
of Literature discussed the potential for blended learning to bridge the opportunity gap by
providing equity and access to curriculum. However, the data in this study revealed new
concerns as to whether blended learning practices promoted or prohibited access and equity in
underserved communities (Burris & Welner, 2005; Milner, 2010). The following table identifies
the emergent themes derived from the data, and outlines the correlations to the research
questions showing how a lack of coherence in definition and instructional model, led to varying
perceptions about a teacher’s role in a blended learning environment, and how the delivery
model promoted or prohibited access to meaningful interactions with the content, and equitable
opportunities for student learning.
Table 2
Emergent Themes for Research Questions
Themes
Research
Question
#1
Lack of coherence among blended
learning definitions
Varying perceptions about the role of
the teacher in a blended learning
environment
Research
Question
#2
Lack of coherence in instructional
practices and delivery models
Varying degrees of access and equity
in blended learning environments
Lack of Coherence among Blended Learning Definitions and the Role of the Teacher
In analyzing the participant’s responses pertaining to research question 1, the data
showed some commonalities in definitions that were consistent with a shift in pedagogy towards
student-centered practices, while other definitions were more consistent with teacher-centered
practices in a technology-rich classroom. The divergent responses were consistent with the
findings of Skrypnyk et al. (2015), and supported the idea that without a clear definition of what
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 56
constitutes blended learning practices; those in the field are left without a clear understanding of
how to implement the practices. In a meta-analysis of the research on blended learning
Skrypnyk et al. (2015) stated that some in the field of research consider blended learning
practices to include 30%-70% online instruction, with the remaining being face to face
instruction; while others in the field of research consider any amount of web-facilitated
classroom instruction, or communication to be blended learning. For the purpose of this study,
blended learning was defined as a formal education program utilizing student-centered practices
through a combination of anytime-everywhere online learning and/or supervised instruction that
was provided in a brick-and-mortar location away from home. It combines high-quality face-to-
face instruction with online learning and gives students control over time, place, path, and/or
pace (Staker & Horn, 2012; Patrick & Sturgis, 2015).
Following the discussion on the lack of coherence among blended learning definitions, I
will segue to the second emergent theme, which was highlighted by the varying perceptions
about the teacher’s role in a blended learning classroom. Each teacher’s perception about their
role in a blended learning classroom was linked to their pedagogical beliefs and their
understanding of how to support students by engaging them in learning, during both face-to-face
and online learning activities. In the blended learning classes described in the study definition
above, the instructor utilized student-centered practices that shifted their role from the keeper of
knowledge, to a facilitator or guide (Dole, Bloom, Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose, 2001;
McCabe & O’Connor, 2014; Rodriguez, 2012).
The following sections will feature the commonalities in each teacher’s definition and perceived
role, along with the differing thoughts about blended learning practice and implementation. The
discussion will center on how each teacher incorporated their individual understanding of
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 57
blended learning into their daily instructional practice. Table 3 provides a brief summary of each
teacher’s personal definition of blended learning and identifies the varying ideas surrounding its
practice. The data in Table 3 identifies the lack of coherence in the definition of blended
learning, and provides a basis for the varying delivery models for blended learning instruction. In
the next sections, the researcher will report how the varying definitions of blended learning led to
misperceptions about the teacher’s role in a blended learning environment, and how it influenced
equity, degrees of access, and pedagogical practice.
Table 3
Research Question 1 Participant’s Definition of Blended Learning
Varying Definitions of Blended Learning
Terri “My students are able to work at their own pace. They preview the
material before coming to class and once they are in class, we can use
that time to dive deeper into topics.”
Joshua “…allowing students to access the content through a variety of methods,
not just through myself as the teacher.”
Kelli “…having a space outside of a traditional classroom, where students can
learn on their own and incorporate technology in a self-directed way.”
Elizabeth “We do blended learning everyday… students come in, sit down, and
log into Google Classroom.”
Jesse “Integrating digital content as well as real life experiences into the
classroom.”
Anna “Blended learning is making the content available to students online so
they can access it from school or at home.”
Lilly “…meeting students where they are at, and using technology to fill in
the holes.”
Christina “Allowing students to interact with the material online while at home,
and then also in the classroom when they are with me.”
Emily “…using technology to enhance student learning.”
The table above (Table 3) highlights key words and phrases that helped to show each
teacher’s definition of blended learning. In their personal definitions teachers made reference to
blended learning instructional practices that allowed flexibility in time, pace, path and place for
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 58
learning. The following sections will provide an expanded discussion of commonalities and
differences in the data that were collected.
Lack of Coherence in Participant’s Personal Definitions of Blended Learning
In interviewing teachers about their personal definitions of blended learning, the
researcher noted that some teachers remarked on similar understandings of the shift in
pedagogical practice, while others described varying nuances of blended learning practices. Five
of the nine teachers described a shift in pedagogy from teacher-centered practices towards
student-centered practices. Conversely, four of the nine teachers described their practice as
being a technology-rich environment, rather than blended learning.
In response to the interview question regarding each teacher’s personal definition of
blended learning all nine teachers mentioned the use of technology and integrating either
Chromebooks or iPads into their daily instructional practice. Every teacher that was interviewed
had a district-paid subscription to a Learning Management System (LMS) called Canvas. Over
the last few years, the Canvas LMS has gained popularity in secondary schools, community
colleges, and universities due to its capabilities in managing and presenting digital content in
modules, or chapters, similar to the organization of a textbook. Although every teacher had
access to Canvas, five of the nine teachers chose to use Google Classroom only, and some chose
to use a mix of Canvas and Google Suite Applications, as the Google features can be integrated
into Canvas. One of the teachers who chose not to use Canvas stated that it has “too many
features and you need to do a lot of work on the front end to design the course the way you want.
Google classroom is just easier to use.” Regardless of choosing to use Canvas or Google
Classroom, all nine teachers included the use of web-based software to deliver content, engage
students, and communicate outside of class, thus arriving at the beginning stages of a common
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 59
definition of blended learning practice (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995;
Skrypnyk et al., 2015; Staker & Horn, 2012).
In addition, Terri, Joshua, Kelli, Jesse, and Lilly stated that blended learning meant that
students were able to work at their own pace, outside of the traditional classroom, as independent
learners (Staker & Horn, 2012; Patrick & Sturgis, 2015). Kelli stated that her personal definition
of blended learning means that her students “have a place outside of a traditional classroom,
where they can learn in a self-directed way.” This statement was corroborated by a response
from Joshua stating that his definition of blended learning means “allowing students to access the
content through a variety of methods, not just through myself as the teacher.” These statements
indicated a shift in pedagogical thinking and an understanding that the teacher was not the sole
keeper of knowledge (Dole, Bloom, Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose, 2001; McCabe &
O’Connor, 2014; Rodriguez, 2012). This shift in thinking was supported by the literature in
highlighting a shift towards a student-centered pedagogy with understandings that students can
learn from each other (student-student), from the text (student-content), and from the teacher
(student-teacher) (Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013).
Kelli, Elizabeth, Anna, Lilly, and Christina all included aspects to access and equity in
their definitions by stating that students had the ability to engage with the content at their own
pace, viewing and reviewing videos and materials, as needed. Terri noted, “My students are able
to work at their own pace,” likewise Kelli noted that “Students set the pace for themselves and
go deeper when they want to,” stating that there was a sense of independence and autonomous
learning incorporated into blended learning practices. Teachers noted the shift in their own
teaching practices as well, stating that their time was freed up to go deeper with content, engage
in class discussions, and participate in hands-on learning experiences, especially in science, since
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 60
their time was no longer spent lecturing (Dole, Bloom, Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose, 2001;
Holmberg, 2005; McCabe & O’Connor, 2014; Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Rodriguez, 2012). This
concept was a shift in blended learning pedagogy and indicated a change in thinking about
student-centered practices. It touched upon the role of the teacher, but was used here to
emphasize the shift in thinking as teachers described their personal definitions of blended
learning.
In keeping with the topic of equity, Lilly stated in her personal definition that blended
learning was not just about using online resources, it was more about “using online resources to
differentiate instruction and make small learning groups for the kids.” This definition of blended
learning touched on the potential to broaden the range of opportunities for underserved students,
and design equitable experiences for all students (Bower et al., 2015; Burris & Welner, 2005;
Milner, 2010). The experiences offered through blended learning have the potential to expand
access to the curriculum and target the interests, and learning needs of individual students
(Cunningham, 2014). This topic was noted here in Lilly’s personal definition of blended
learning, and will be addressed again in later sections pertaining to research question 2.
In contrast to the shifts in pedagogy and the integration of access and equity, four of the
nine teachers described blended learning using terms that were more consistent with a
technology- rich classroom. In a technology-rich classroom, teachers use computer-mediated
tools to enhance traditional teaching practices through engaging videos, web-based tools, and
electronic devices that facilitate teacher practice (Staker & Horn, 2012). According to Staker
and Horn, 2012, technology-rich instructional practices help to maintain the teacher’s role as the
keeper of knowledge, and do not allow for student control over time, place, path, and/or pace.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 61
In describing her personal definition of blended learning, Elizabeth stated, “We do
blended learning everyday… students come in, sit down, and use their Chromebooks to log into
Google Classroom.” She elaborated to say that students had the opportunity to watch her
recorded lectures and access their assigned tasks for the day. Upon further elaboration, it was
revealed that Elizabeth used Google Classroom as a repository for content, rather than a socio-
cultural learning tool. It allowed for student-content, and student-teacher interactions, without
being used for student-student tasks (Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013). Notably, students
interacted with the teacher, but did not discuss content, collaborate on tasks, or learn from each
other. The teacher maintained the role of the disseminator of knowledge.
Elizabeth shared she posted content for student review, but had not changed her lesson
delivery model, or shifted her practice to included student-centered learning (Staker & Horn,
2012). The years of teacher-centered instructional practices were noted in statements such as
“Everything that we used to do on paper, we now do in Google Apps. We take notes in our
digital notebooks, we use digital flash cards to practice vocabulary, we use google forms to take
quizzes, and we upload our assignments to Google Classroom.” Elizabeth added that the use of
digital tools and Google Apps allowed her to do quick checks for understanding, and adjust her
lesson sequence as needed, however her description of practice maintained a teacher-centered
focus and a steadfast hold on the concept that the role of the teacher is to be the keeper of
knowledge (Dole, Bloom, & Kowalske, 2016; Grant & Hill, 2006; Madaus & Russell, 2010.
During the interviews, the teacher’s personal definition of blended learning was often
intertwined with his or her role as a teacher. Their broad description of practice helped to
provide insight, and clarify their understanding of blended learning practices, and their personal
definition. Additionally, it should be noted that each teacher’s approach to blended learning was
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 62
dependent on the tools they had at their disposal (Chromebooks, access to Wi-Fi, and Learning
Management Systems) and their level of training when it came to using each of the tools.
Teachers with class sets of devices (i.e., Chromebooks), approached blended learning instruction
in the same way they might use a textbook for instruction. They used the tool to passively deliver
knowledge about content, but did not plan for student interactions using the device, nor
discussions that expanded on one another’s conceptual understanding.
Conversely, teachers whose students were 1:1 with devices, meaning the device was
checked out to the student for school and home use, described a shift to more student-centered
learning practices that allowed students to have more control over time, place, path, and/or pace
when engaging with the content. Teachers with access to 1:1 devices described tasks that created
purposeful opportunities for students to work collaboratively, and share conceptual
understandings. This showed the distinction between the varying degrees of access, and how it
affects the instructional methods used to deliver blended learning instruction, thereby altering the
teacher’s perception about their role in a blended learning environment.
Outside of the differences between blended learning pedagogy and technology-rich
instruction, both instructional practices offered universal supports to students who may be
challenged with organization, visual, motor, or linguistic differences (Madaus & Russell, 2010;
Milner, 2010). The findings also showed that the use of digital devices and web-based tools
allowed students the opportunity to manage instructional materials in a convenient location,
either Google Apps, or Canvas course pages and files (Staker & Horn, 2012).
In her definition of blended learning, Anna stated that “content is available to students
online, so they can access it from school or at home.” She adds that when students forget a book
or folder in their locker, it was no longer an excuse not to complete their work because the
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 63
content was available online. Although this leads back to the previous comments on equity and
access to a device outside of school and home Wi-Fi, research by Attewell & Savill-Smith
(2005), Bower, et al. (2015), Graham (2013), Milner (2010), and Wagner (2014) states that the
use of digital tools, and web-based supports, offer students access to screen readers, speech to
text, closed captioned videos, and control over the number of times students play, or replay a
video for clarification. It also allows opportunities for everywhere-anytime learning that
supports with schedule changes, difficulties physically getting to class, or schedule conflicts such
as child care or work schedules (Cunningham, 2014). The increased access to digital supports
helps to narrow the opportunity gap and provides expanded access to the curriculum. Many
teachers in this study stated that the benefits of using digital learning were that is expanded the
student’s ability to access the curriculum. This insight offered another layer to the definition of
blended learning, and helped the researcher to understand the many factors that went into
constructing a personal understanding of blended learning practice.
This section discussed the varying definitions of blended learning and identified the
common themes and discrepant understandings surrounding blended learning practices and
technology rich instruction. In this study, five of the nine teachers noted the shifts in practice
from a teacher-centered pedagogy to a student-centered pedagogy. The majority of the teachers
also noted elements of access and equity in their definitions and highlighted the benefits of using
digital tools to support learning.
When analyzing the range of participant responses, the researcher noted the definitions
were on a continuum spanning from the novice level descriptions to proficient level definitions.
The four teachers who used Google Classroom or Canvas as a repository in a technology-rich
classroom continued to utilize teacher-centered practices and did not describe a true
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 64
understanding of blended learning practices in their definition. While the remaining five
teacher’s definitions described a deeper understanding of blended learning practices that
included a shift in pedagogical practice and transferred the onus for learning to the student, while
providing some control over time, place, path, and/or pace (Staker & Horn, 2012; Patrick &
Sturgis, 2015).
There were times during the interview where teachers described their definition of
blended learning in terms of their role. The next section delved into the second emergent theme,
the varying perceptions about the teacher’s role in a blended learning classroom, to discuss the
manner in which teachers interacted with students during online and face-to-face instruction, and
the instructional shifts from traditional teaching practices, to blended learning practices.
Varying Perceptions about the Teacher’s Role in a Blended Learning Environment
The data showed that teacher’s perceptions about their role in blended learning
environment were in close relation to each teacher’s definition of blended learning. Teacher
perceptions about their role in a blended learning classroom were closely linked to their
pedagogical beliefs and understandings about the student-centered shifts in blended learning
practice (Dole, Bloom, Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose, 2001; McCabe & O’Connor, 2014;
Rodriguez, 2012).
As stated in the previous section, five of the nine teachers who participated in this study
described shifts in their role from teacher-centered to student centered, stating transformations in
practice from keeper of knowledge to facilitator or guide (Staker & Horn, 2012; Patrick &
Sturgis, 2015). Four of the nine teachers interviewed described little to no change in their
pedagogical practice, with minimal shifts in lesson delivery methods. Some teachers used the
words “student-centered” and “facilitator” to describe their teaching practice, but expressed
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 65
teaching and learning practices using traditional instructional methods and roles. The data were
aligned with the varying definitions of blended learning and the misperception that the role of a
blended learning teacher was to use technology rich practices (Staker & Horn, 2012), rather than
student-centered practices that supported deeper learning opportunities.
The data in the table below describe each teacher’s perceived role in a blended learning
environment. Some teachers noted shifts in pedagogical thinking and described their practice
using terms such as “facilitator” and “guide”, which was in contrast to the traditional terms used
to describe the role of a teacher as a “lecturer”, “curriculum manager”, and “keeper of
knowledge” (Dole, Bloom, Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose, 2001; McCabe & O’Connor, 2014;
Rodriguez, 2012). Others described perceived feelings of guilt when they veered away from
their traditional role as the disseminator of knowledge, and allowed students to learn and
discover on their own. Research by Dole, Bloom, and Kowalske (2016) stated that it a can take
months, even years, for teachers to unlearn the years of teacher-centered practices and undergo a
shift in pedagogical thinking that allowed them to become comfortable in their new role.
Table 4
Research Question 1 Teacher’s Perception of their Role in a Blended Learning Classroom
Teacher’s Perceptions about their Role in a
Blended Learning Environment
Terri “My role has been transformed from the teacher to the guide or the
facilitator.”
Joshua “I am more efficient as a teacher. I can provide feedback more
effectively. I allow my students to access content through a variety of
methods, not just through myself as the teacher.”
Kelli “I don’t think my role has changed. Technology has just made it easier
to access the content, and I am more accessible to my students. I am
still the expert in the subject that I am teaching.”
Elizabeth “I have had to change to keep up with technology. I need to know all
the shortcuts and tricks so I can keep a step ahead of my students. I use
technology during class and then send them the slides when we are done
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 66
because I don’t want them to go ahead as I’m lecturing and get the
answers.”
Jesse “I am more of a facilitator. I learn by doing. I am not a teacher who
lectures. I do not want class to be ‘me-centered’. I try hard to make it
student-centered and I use technology as a tool to help me. It opens up a
whole new world for students to investigate on their own.”
Anna “My role has not changed very much. I am still providing students with
the materials they need. I do not know if students realize it now, but I
am preparing them for college, since everything will be online.”
Lilly “I have shifted my thinking and I am using data to provide targeted
lesson to my students. I also provide feedback so they can progress
through learning targets to meet the standard.”
Christina “My role only changed a little bit. I am still responsible. I try to
balance spoon feeding them the information and letting them get it on
their own. I mean, if they do not get it, it is ultimately my fault for not
teaching it to them. I am showing them a bit more application, doing a
bit more coaching.”
Emily “I am more of a facilitator. Instead of giving directions, I put everything
online so I do not have to keep telling students what to do. I put all the
links and reminders in Google classroom and they know exactly where
to go to find them. I put more responsibility on them.”
The table above (Table 4) provides data that were collected during teacher interviews.
During the interviews teachers described their role as a blended learning instructor to include
pedagogical shifts towards student-centered learning practices such as guiding and facilitating
learning experiences, and providing feedback. Teachers also described long-held, student-
centered beliefs that teachers are the keeper of knowledge and it is their responsibility to teach
the students what they need to know (Dole, Bloom, Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose, 2001;
McCabe & O’Connor, 2014; Rodriguez, 2012). Data that were collected to highlight the
instructional shifts are discussed in the next section.
Descriptions of a Shift towards Student-Centered Learning. When asked about their
role in a blended learning classroom, Terri, Joshua, Lilly, and Emily described transformations
from teacher-centered to student-centered pedagogy. Terri said, “instead of sitting and taking
notes as I lecture, the students get to explore and have fun learning real science.” Likewise,
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 67
Joshua stated that his students spent more time “doing science, not just reading about it.” The
literature supports the transition towards hands-on learning opportunities that allow for student-
content, student-teacher, and student-student interactions, stating that these types of interactions
lead to greater engagement with the course, and deeper learning experiences that can be applied
to future learning (Bernard et al., 2014; Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013).
In addition to the role as a guide or facilitator, Joshua, Lilly, and Emily, stated that their
role was to provide feedback to students as they developed new understandings. Joshua stated
that he no longer spent class time lecturing, and that it had freed up time to be more efficient as a
teacher. He was able to walk around the classroom while students were engaged in lab
experiments, to ask questions and provide feedback. Likewise, Lilly stated that she used audio
and video tools to record students as they solved math problems aloud. As students explained
their thinking, Lilly was able to identify any misconceptions and direct students towards a deeper
understanding of the concept. This was significant in that Lily used her role as a facilitator to
provide a time and space for students to solve problems and co-construct meaning while working
in groups, or independently. She stated that she did not automatically give students the answer,
or tell them how to solve the problem; however, she did provide students with guidance and
feedback so they could participate in meaningful group discussions and take ownership of their
own learning, while persevering to solve the problem themselves (McCabe & O’Connor, 2014).
Similarly, Emily stated that she facilitated learning by “checking-in with students as they
completed assignments on Google classroom.” Emily stated that she would introduce the
assignment in person, and proactively answer any questions students might have about the task
or the assignment. She posted the directions and lesson materials in Google classroom to
facilitate organization and provide a space to turn in the assignments. One feature she noted was
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 68
the ability to view “in-progress” assignments and provide feedback to students as they worked to
complete the assignment. Emily stated that she provided feedback in real-time, allowing students
to make corrections, rather than waiting until the assignment had been completed and submitted
for a final grade. Emily stated that the shift in practice “allowed students to take charge of their
learning and created deeper connections with the concept.” The outcomes stated by Emily are
supported by Dole, Bloom, and Kowalske (2016) whose findings stated that student-centered
classrooms experienced a shift in the classroom structure as students took ownership of learning,
self-assessed progress, and demonstrated voice and choice in assignments or topics.
Although Emily stated the benefits of student-centered practices, data gathered from her
description of practice were in contradiction to her words. Emily described traditional teaching
practices, such as directing students where to go in the textbook, and what to study. She
described practices where she watered-down the curriculum by recording lectures that are “easier
for students than reading the textbook”, assigning vocabulary worksheets, and assessing students
on low-level skills that did not include critical thinking or the application of knowledge (Booher-
Jennings, 2005; Burris & Welner, 2005; Kellaghan & Greaney, 1992; Oakes & Guiton, 1995;
Milner, 2010; Shepard & Smith, 1998). The practices described by Emily showed a contrast
between her understanding of the benefits of student-centered practices, and the long-held
teacher-centered beliefs that information needed to be spoon-fed to students in manageable
chunks.
Emily stated that, “a video on YouTube is not going to teach the students. It can give
them a preview, but it is my responsibility as the teacher to make sure they learn what I want
them to know.” The teacher-centered practices were deeply rooted in Emily’s perceived role as a
teacher. Emily stated that she wanted to “put more on them (students), so they do more of the
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 69
work, I don’t want to spoon feed them everything. But, if I assign a video for them to watch, I
cannot always see if they are doing it or if they understood.” Her concern appeared to be more
towards whether students completed the assigned work, rather than if they understood the
concept she was attempting to teach. Emily shared that she lectured twice a week, and provided
students with an outline of the key topics to copy into their notebooks. She included that the
notebooks were periodically turned in for review, where Emily assigned a grade based on the
organization of the notebook and evidence of completed assignments, rather than the content of
the assignments, or the learning that occurred as a result of the task.
This was problematic for two reasons. First, Emily described her role to be that of a
facilitator or guide, when in fact she held more to a traditional role and structure. Although she
mentioned the “transition of power” that occurred when students took ownership of their
learning, she maintained the power as the disseminator of knowledge, and did not describe a
relationship of mutual trust with students as independent learners (Dole, Bloom, & Kowalske,
2016). Her perceived role was to teach the students, although it was not in conjunction with the
role of the students as learners. Furthermore, she did not trust, or expect students to
independently watch the videos she assigned or engage in the readings outside of class. In her
mind, she was the teacher and it was her job to “teach” the students what they needed to know as
they sat passively and took in the information for which they would eventually be tested (Dole,
Bloom, & Kowalske, 2016; Fullen & Langworthy, 2013; Grant & Hill, 2006; Madaus & Russel,
2010).
Second, this was problematic because Emily did not indicate a realization that the
traditional methods of teacher-centered instruction held negative results such as a narrowed,
watered-down curriculum, and unengaged students (Madaus & Russell, 2010). When describing
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 70
the factors that came into play during lesson design, Emily maintained that her lesson delivery
methods were effective in teaching students the content that she wanted them to know. She
stated that her role in a blended learning classroom was to ‘use technology to teach students, and
prepare them for college, as most universities integrated technology into their course design”.
Emily did not mention goals such as teaching students to be independent or self-directed
learners, nor did she relay an understanding that these were the types of skills and dispositions
desired by both colleges and the workforce (P21, 2009; McCabe & O’Conner, 2014).
Likewise, data from Anna, Christina, and Elizabeth, indicated a minimal shift in their role
as blended learning teachers. All three described using traditional teaching methods, which
included the use of technology to support learning. Anna and Elizabeth both stated that their
students used an interactive notebook to organize materials and take notes on lectures. Anna
stated that she used the Canvas learning management system (LMS) to post links to assignments
and communicate with students, while Elizabeth stated that she used Google Classroom to post
assignments, and generate announcements for students and parents. Both Anna and Elizabeth
shared that they mainly use the tools to communicate with students and disseminate information.
They stated that in their classrooms, students rarely used Canvas or Google Classroom to
participate in discussion topics or provide peer-to-peer feedback. Descriptive data from
Elizabeth and Anna showed a lack of understanding about the shifts in instructional practice that
accompany blended learning, and any potential for the technology tools to be used for deeper
learning through socio-constructivist learning activities such as group discussions, collaborative
projects, peer-to-peer feedback, and presentations of learning (Dole, Bloom & Kowalske, 2016;
Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000).
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 71
Similarly, Christina stated that her typical lesson format was to “think about what I want
students to know, and scaffold the material so my students will get it.” She added that she
“breaks the assignment down into smaller tasks to help students get a better understanding. That
way they can do a bit more of the application.” The tasks Christina described were teacher-
centered, and there appeared to be a hesitance on Christina’s part to let students attempt a task
and get it wrong. She planned her lessons by frontloading the content, then directing each step,
to ensure the expected outcome. Christina stated that she did not want to spoon-feed content to
students, but “if they do not get it, it is ultimately my fault for not teaching it to them.”
This view was similar to Emily’s statement about spoon-feeding content to students, and
the perceived guilt that some teachers felt when they did not provide direct instruction to
students using teacher-centered practices. Findings by Dole, Bloom, and Kowalske (2016) stated
that the perceived guilt could be increased when there was not a clear understanding of the
pedagogy, and students and parents felt that the teacher was not doing his or her job when using
non-traditional teaching methods. The dichotomy could be compounded when teachers shifted
towards student-centered practices, but did not have a firm understanding of the pedagogy
behind the shift, nor the importance of reengaging students in deeper learning opportunities that
promoted critical thinking skills and the application of knowledge (Garrison, Anderson, &
Archer, 2000; McCabe & O’Connor, 2004; Milner, 2010, Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013).
As stated at the beginning of this section, teacher perceptions about their role were closely tied to
their understanding of the pedagogical shifts that accompanied blended learning instruction
(Dole, Bloom, Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose, 2001; McCabe & O’Connor, 2014; Rodriguez,
2012). Some teachers understood that their role in a blended learning environment included a
shift toward student-centered learning, wherein students were expected to take ownership of their
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 72
learning and engage in student-teacher interactions, as well as student-student and student-
content interactions to engage in deeper learning (Means et al., 2013). While other teachers held
to their teacher-centered roles as disseminators of knowledge, who made small shifts towards
integrating digital tools in a technology-rich classroom, but did not hold a firm understanding of
the reasons behind the shift, nor the benefits that surpassed organization and direct access to
content links and assignments. The overall findings for this theme show that teachers perceive
their role according to their definition of blended learning, which is discussed further in the
summary of emergent themes in research question one.
Lack of Coherence in Instructional Models and Varying Degrees of Access and Equity.
As stated in the previous section, the lack of coherence in blended learning definitions
has led to inconsistencies in instructional models and lesson design. While some teachers
understood the pedagogy behind blended learning instruction, others were yet to make the
transformative shifts to self-directed learning, and remained steady in the role of the teacher as
the keeper of knowledge (Mears et al., 2013). During the interviews, each teacher described
their processes for lesson design and provided insight into their thinking on instructional delivery
and expected outcomes.
The data in the table below describe each teacher’s process for lesson design and
instructional delivery. While some teachers noted shifts in pedagogical thinking and described
their processes as being able to “go deeper” with concepts or topics, and “having more time to
provide feedback” and allow students to “interact with the content”, a contrast remains whereas
other teachers described their processes in more traditional terms of lecturing several times a
week, “only reviewing content they already know”, and designing lesson where students “take
notes on lectures during class”, thereby focusing on the dissemination of knowledge, rather than
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 73
a deeper understanding of the lesson topic (Dole, Bloom, Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose,
2001; McCabe & O’Connor, 2014; Rodriguez, 2012). Similar to the findings in research
question 1, the emergent themes identified in the second research question showed the
transformative thinking by some teachers in terms of student-centered pedagogy, and the
traditional practices of others. The following sections provide a discussion on the varying
blended learning lesson delivery models, and how instructional practices either promoted or
prohibited equity and access to the curriculum.
Table 5
Research Question 2 Lack of Coherence in Instructional Practices and Delivery Models
Lack of Coherence in Instructional Practices and Delivery Models
Terri “I post the content online and expect that my students will read, listen,
and know the information before coming to class. When we are in class,
we use the time to discuss the content and go deeper with what it
means.”
“I sometimes pull the students into small groups and ask them questions.
When I do that, I can really see what they do and don’t understand.
From there I make adjustments to my lessons and re-enforce concepts
when needed.”
Joshua “I break the lessons down into lesson objectives and plan simulations or
other activities that allow students to interact each other and with the
content.”
“I use the formative assessment results to identify students for small
groups or individual conversations. I can walk over to a student and
provide feedback without letting the whole class know they got the
answer wrong.”
Kelli “I always introduce new topics during face-to-face instruction. It helps
by students understand it better when they hear it from me.”
“I try to only post concepts that they have already learned online.”
Elizabeth “I post the material online, but we always go over it in class.”
“When students are watching my lecture video I walk around and help
them by answering questions.”
“I usually have them take notes on my lectures using a pencil and paper
so I can walk by and see that they are actually doing it.”
Jesse “I usually post all my lectures and content online.”
“I only do an in-person lecture once or twice a week now.”
Anna “I don’t usually provide feedback because students don’t read the
comments or check their email.”
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 74
“It got to be too much, so I stopped doing it.”
Lilly “I used blended learning for small group instruction. I have a direct
instruction group, a collaboration group, and an independent work
group.”
“I design my lessons for students to rotate through each group
throughout the lesson.”
“I use the independent work group to remediate any gaps in learning.”
Christina “When I lecture and provide direct instruction, I am not always able to
get through the lesson. That is why I started recording my lectures. Now
students can take their time watching my lectures. They can go back and
listen and take notes at their own pace.”
Emily “I usually introduce any new topics face-to-face, but will post the
directions and the rubric online.”
“I like to use Google Classroom because I can monitor my student’s
work progress and leave comments as they are working.”
The table above (Table 5) shows the data that were collected in response to the
instructional practices and delivery models that teachers described during daily blended learning
instruction. The lack of coherence is evidenced by the varying expectations for students to
complete work ahead of class, and the range in which teachers designed the course to allow for
socio-cultural learning practices where students learned from each other, the text, and the teacher
(Bernard et al., 2014; Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013).
Instructional Practices and Delivery Models
In interviewing teachers about their processes when it comes to blended learning lesson
design, the researcher noted that some teachers described similar understandings about the shifts
in student-centered pedagogy, while others described teacher-centered practices. Although five
out of nine teachers originally described a transformational shift in thinking when talking about
their personal definition of blended learning and their role as a blended learning teacher, only
two out the five actually described student-centered practices as part of instructional design and
lesson delivery practices. In reality, seven of the nine teachers interviewed described their design
and delivery as blended learning instruction, while misconstruing practices that were effectually
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 75
teacher-centered in nature. As stated in a previous section in regard to personal definitions of
blended learning and teacher perceptions about their role, there is some confusion about the role
of the teacher being to “do” blended learning, which spanned the continuum from technology-
rich, to collaborative and independent learning that led to deeper understandings on a topic or
concept.
In response to interview questions regarding the instructional practices and lesson
delivery models, seven of the nine teachers commented on lecturing or using face-to-face
instruction to deliver new lesson content that “guided the students into knowing what I need
them to learn”. The teacher-centered instructional delivery model remained consistent with the
traditional role of the teacher as the keeper of knowledge, and did not allow opportunities for
students to interact with the text, and make meaning on their own, or with the help of their peers
(Dole, Bloom, Kowalske, 2016; Fischer & Rose, 2001; McCabe & O’Connor, 2014; Means,
Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013; Rodriguez, 2012). One teacher stated, “It helps my students
understand it better when they hear it from me.”, which was consistent with the deep-rooted
practices that emerged during the era of high-stakes testing and contributed to a narrowed
curriculum, disengaged students, and low expectations for student learning (Madaus & Russell,
2010). These topics will be further explored in the next section on equity and access in blended
learning environments.
Kelli, Elizabeth, Jesse, Anna, Lilly, Christina, and Emily all made reference to
instructional practices and lesson delivery models that promoted low expectations for student
learning and limited opportunities for students to interact with the text or content. They all posted
content online for review, and remediation, but did not expect students to come to class prepared
to discuss their new learning. Likewise, each of the aforementioned teachers maintained
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 76
traditional teacher-centered roles of lecturing to present lesson content. Instead of delivering an
in-person lecture, teachers recorded themselves lecturing and posted the video online for students
to passively watch and take notes. Since the video was posted on line and available for
asynchronous learning, the teachers misguidedly deemed the practice as blended learning
instruction.
In addition to recording lectures, Kelli, Lilly, and Emily each described posting “familiar
content” online, or ancillary documents that can be used for reference such as directions and
rubrics, rather than content for new learning. Kelli stated that her process for lesson design
included, “reading the lesson objectives, and then finding a picture, video, or making a podcast
that helps me to explain the concepts to them.” She used new media, such as videos and
podcasts, to present the content in a technology-rich format but missed out on the opportunity to
allow students to engage with the high-level text and engage in deeper discussions. This type of
instruction led to a watered-down, teacher-centered curriculum, that promoted student
disengagement and low expectations for student learning (Booher-Jennings, 2005; Burris &
Welner, 2005; Kellaghan & Greaney, 1992; Oakes & Guiton, 1995; Milner, 2010; Shepard &
Smith, 1998). This is presented here as part of the discussion on lesson design and instructional
practice but was also mentioned in previous sections about a teacher’s definition and perceived
role in a blended learning environment, and will be further discussed in the next section on
equity and access.
By contrast, Terri and Joshua described instructional practices and lesson delivery models
that promoted student-centered learning with high expectations for students. Terri stated that her
expectation was that students “would know the information before coming to class” so they
could “use the class time to discuss the content and go deeper.” She described opportunities for
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 77
students to engage with the content and learn from each other (student-student), from the text
(student-content), and from the teacher (student-teacher) (Bernard et al., 2014; Means, Toyama,
Murphy, & Baki, 2013).
Joshua’s description included shifts towards student-centered pedagogy that included
creating activities and simulations that allowed students to “interact with each other, and with the
content.” Descriptions of practice from both Terri and Joshua indicated a deep understanding of
blended learning pedagogy that was reflected in their lesson design and instructional practices. It
remained consistent with their personal definition of blended learning and their perceived role as
a blended learning teacher.
In connection to student-centered teaching practices, an additional theme emerged
highlighting the varied ways teachers provided feedback to students. Five of the nine teachers
expressed that they typically provided verbal and written feedback to students, while three noted
that they often provided verbal, written, and video/audio feedback, depending on the type of
assignment. One teacher noted that she only provided verbal feedback because, “Students don’t
read the comments or check their email, so I stopped writing it down.” It is noted that both the
Canvas LMS and Google Classroom platform allow teachers to provide written, audio, and video
feedback on assignment submissions. Google classroom even allows the teacher to go into “in
progress” assignments to review and provide feedback prior to the assignment submission. In
addition, most teachers stated that the verbal feedback was typically provided during face-to-face
conversations, either individually, or in small groups.
The practice of providing feedback is considered student-centered as it signifies the shift
pedagogical practice by allowing students to take control of their own learning. It shifts the role
of the teacher to guide and facilitator and speaks to the willingness to release responsibility to the
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 78
learner, and allows the learner to assume the “in-charge” role. As noted in previous sections, the
ability to provide feedback is essential to the shift in blended learning pedagogy and the role of
the teacher involving teaching presence and the ability to facilitate discussions that nurture a
culture of inquiry, problem solving, and critical thinking (Allen, 2004; Anderson, 2009;
Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; McCabe and O’Connor, 2014; Skrypnyk et al., 2015).
In the next section I will delve into the impact that lesson delivery models and
instructional practices have on equity and access to a broad curriculum. The section will start
with a review of data in the table below (Table 6) that includes each teacher’s perception
pertaining to equity and access, and will be followed by a discussion on whether blended
learning practices, in their current state of adoption, promote or prohibit access to a broad
curriculum.
Varying Degrees of Access and Equity in Blended Learning
The topic of access and equity in blended learning instruction has been mentioned
throughout this chapter as it is intertwined with the definition of blended learning and the role of
a teacher in a blended learning classroom. Access and equity also come into play when
discussing lesson delivery models and instructional practices in a blended learning environment.
The topics related to access range from access to a functioning web-based device, to access to
stable Wi-Fi, to concepts of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and providing multiple access
points of entry for students with disabilities, and English learners, to access to a broad
curriculum with opportunities to narrow the opportunity gap (Madaus & Russell, 2010; Milner,
2010). There are many facets of providing access when it comes to blended learning. In this
section we will discuss themes from data that were collected during teacher interviews for this
particular study.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 79
Additional discussion topics will include the historically inequitable practices of
institutional racism whereby underserved students have traditionally been marginalized by a
narrowed, watered-down curriculum that led to low expectations and disengaged students, and
the lingering effects of those practices (Bower, et al., 2015; Madaus & Russell, 2010; Milner,
2010; Rogers, Graham, Rasmussen, Campbell, & Ure, 2003; White, Ramirez, Smith, Plonoski,
2010). The following table (Table 6) presents data that were collected in response to interview
questions that inquired about the promise of blended learning to provide access and equity to
underserved students. In a summary of this section, I will discuss the current state of blended
learning implementation and consider whether the current practices promote or prohibit access to
the curriculum and equitable opportunities for underserved students.
Table 6
Research Question 2 Varying Degrees of Access and Equity in Blended Learning
Varying Degrees of Access and Equity in
Blended Learning Environments
Terri “My students have access to the curriculum from anywhere and can go
at their own pace.”
“…most of my students come early or stay after school to use the wi-fi
because they do not have access at home.”
“It takes a lot of work on my part to make it look so easy.” (Reference to
lesson planning to promote multiple access and entry points)
Joshua “A lot of times my students will forget to charge their Chromebook or
leave it at home. That is why I try to have as many desktop computers as
I can in the classroom, so they can always access their work.”
“I like to record my lessons, but I don’t stop there. I find other people’s
videos and different simulations from other points of view because my
way of thinking might not be the best way for my students. I like to
present options for their learning.”
Kelli “Students can choose their own pace and path in learning. When they
are absent, they can always go back and review what we learned in class
that day by watching the lecture video, and reviewing other links that I
posted.”
“I think that learning is social, and we need to interact with others
(students and teachers) to make it fun. I wouldn’t make all my lessons
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 80
on line because I think that is boring. I always make face-to-face
learning part of my lessons.”
Elizabeth “I have a class set of Chromebooks, but they cannot take them home.”
“Many of my students do not have access to wi-fi or a computer at home
and are unable to complete the digital assignments once they leave the
school campus.”
“With the increase in technology I have so many students who are off-
task watching YouTube videos, or chatting with friends during class. I
also see a lot of cheating. They think it’s ok to cut and paste from the
internet. They don’t understand that is plagiarism. We spend a lot of
time talking about ethics and integrity.”
Jesse “If you don’t ask for help in person, chances are that you will not ask for
help online. There are times when I offer video chats, study guides, and
podcasts, and I still have students fail my class.”
“It takes a lot of extra time to plan lessons this way [student-centered]. It
really depends on the training and willingness of the teacher to be
mindful of equity and access.”
Anna “Many of our students do not have Internet access at home, so they
don’t always do the work.”
“When they are on campus, students can access that content that is
posted online whenever they need to, and they couldn’t do that if I just
showed them a video in class. Posting the content online gives them
choice over the pace and time that they can learn.”
Lilly “I used blended learning to help remediate any gaps in learning. I use
small groups for collaboration and independent work at each student’s
instructional level. If a student is driven to succeed, then blended
learning is more equable, but I just don’t know if I am willing to make
that generalization yet. I just don’t know”
Christina “For students who do not have access to technology outside of school, I
will usually give them extra time, or tell them to come after school
during my office hours, so they can complete their work.”
Emily “I usually give students time to do the work in class because not a lot of
students have access to computers or wi-fi at home.”
The table above (Table 6) presents data that were collected to highlight the varied degrees
of access and equity in blended learning instructional models. Data showed that teachers
modified instruction based on the availability of a device and/or access to stable Wi-Fi. Teachers
described the prevalence of the problem, and how it limited access to the curriculum. The data
findings will be discussed further in the next section.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 81
Degrees of Access and Equitable Practices
The promise of blended learning is to provide expanded opportunities for students,
thereby reducing the effects of a curriculum that has been narrowed by years of high-stakes
testing that led to disengaged students, and a watered-down curriculum (Burris & Welner, 2005;
Madaus & Russell, 2010; Milner, 2010). The greatest opportunity for blended learning is to
provide access to course offerings that would otherwise not be available to students or be offered
in a traditional master schedule with upper, lower, and mid-track pathways towards graduation
(Burris & Welner, 2005.) The data that were collected in this study failed to describe this use for
equitable access to an expanded curriculum and showed that none of the teachers who were
interviewed knew of students who were taking blended learning courses outside of the traditional
master schedule.
One teacher noted that in a neighboring district, students were offered expanded access to
a broad course of study, and many students took advantage of this opportunity by taking online
classes both at school, and through the local community college. Still, the teacher maintained
that her school, like many others, only offered the traditional courses for Advanced
Placement/High Track, Honors/Mid-Track, and CP (College Prep)/Low-Track students, in a
traditional brick-and-mortar master schedule. This highlighted the inequitable opportunities that
were available for some students, and not others, and adds to the conversation about systemic
racism in schools, and a growing opportunity gap (Milner, 2010). All of the teachers who were
interviewed responded that their schools did not provide opportunities for students to take
blended learning (synchronous and asynchronous), or online (asynchronous only) courses during
zero or seventh period, thereby failing to live up to the promise of blended learning offering
expanded opportunities for students, and access to an expanded curriculum.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 82
Secondly, the potential for blended learning instructors to create equitable learning
opportunities that combined the social aspects of face-to-face instruction, with the rigorous
instructional practices found in online learning and distance education have been limited by
several factors, namely the lack of access to a 1:1 device with stable internet access, and the lack
of professional development and planning time to implement the pedagogical shifts in
instruction. During the interviews, all nine teachers reported that their lesson design and
instructional practices were limited by student’s lack of access to a device that could be taken
home, and Wi-Fi connectivity that allowed students to access the curriculum anytime,
everywhere (Attewell & Savill-Smith, 2005).
Terri stated that, “most of my students come early or stay after school to use the Wi-Fi
because they do not have access at home.” Christina stated that, “many students do not have
access to Wi-Fi at home, so I give them extra time to complete the assignments at school.”
Traditionally, students in more affluent neighborhoods have access to their own personal devices
and stable internet connections, while underserved students from lower socio-economic
households typically do not have equitable access to devices or Wi-Fi connectivity (Burris &
Welner, 2005).
In addition to the lack of access to a device and internet connectivity, teachers in this
study reported that access to high-quality professional development, and time to create and
curate content for blended learning instruction was a limiting factor in making the shift towards
student-centered learning. Terri stated that she had been creating blended learning lessons for
about 5 years, so she had a lot of previously created content to choose from but added that “it
takes a lot of work on my part to make it look so easy.” Anna also commented on the lack of
planning and preparation time and stated that “I do not have time for planning, so I typically just
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 83
use what is already out there on the web. Some of it is really good, but some of it is poorly
produced and doesn’t always convey what I want students to take away.” She added that, “it’s all
I’ve got, so I use it anyway, and try to supplement with my own stuff.”
The lack of professional development opportunities and lack of preparation time has led
to the development of mediocre lessons, in the name of blended learning, more specifically,
technology-rich instruction, that does not include the desired shift from teacher-centered to
student-centered pedagogy (Staker & Horn, 2012). This lack of a clear definition, along with the
misunderstood role of a teacher in a blended learning classroom, promotes inequities in lesson
delivery models and instructional practices that continue to marginalize underserved students and
serves to broaden the opportunity gap (Bernard et al., 2014; Madaus & Russell, 2010; McCabe
and O’Connor, 2014; Milner, 2010; Schmidt et al., 2014; Skrypnyk et al., 2015).
Conclusion
This chapter provided a review of the data collected during the nine teacher interviews.
The participating teachers were identified by administrators and peers as being reputable high
school teachers who have been teaching in blended learning environments for two years or more.
The teacher interviews were conducted through the Zoom meeting platform and the audio files of
each interview was transcribed. The transcribed data was then coded and organized by theme.
As part of the data collection, review, and analysis, the emergent themes noted in the data
were the lack of coherence among blended learning definitions, the lack of coherence in
instructional practice and delivery models, the varying perceptions about the role of the teacher,
and lastly, the varying degrees of access to blended learning content in these particular
environments.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 84
Teachers had wide-ranging ways of describing blended learning, and how each of them
approached instruction in a blended learning classroom. The responses varied from teachers who
provided a student-centered learning approach with some control over time, place, pace, and/or
path, to technology-rich classrooms that were teacher-directed, and every student completed the
same tasks, at the same time. Some teachers noted that their role as a teacher had been
transformed to more of a facilitator or guide, while others felt that the use of technology
enhanced their instruction but did not really change the way their lesson delivery model or
instructional practice.
Teachers stated that students were allowed to review the content at their own pace, as
many times as needed, and were encouraged to access the material prior to arriving in class so
that they could use class times for rich discussions. Although teachers stated that not all students
were able to access the blended learning content using their home Wi-Fi, many students were
able to review the content prior to leaving school for the day.
The teachers interviewed in this study were able to provide a rich description of their
perceptions and experiences in a blended learning environment. They shared pertinent
information about their role as a teacher, and whether they perceived their role to have changed
with the recent implementation of blended learning. During the interview, teachers provided
detailed information on how they use teaching presence to organize content and facilitate
classroom discussions. The review of findings, potential implications, and recommendations for
future research will be discussed in the final chapter.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 85
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
At the time of this study, blended learning practice remained fairly new in Southern
California high schools. Since collecting the data for this study, there was a world-wide
COVID-19 pandemic that propelled conversations about distance learning, and blended learning,
to the front of every newspaper, magazine, TV broadcast, and social media website. Due to the
emergency implementation of distance learning, the inequities that effected students were made
visible in largely rural and urban areas across the Nation. The recent perceptions and findings
associated with distance learning in a pandemic will be further discussed in the
Recommendations for Research section of this chapter.
In the early 2000s, we witnessed a shift in pedagogical practices that lead to a teacher-
centered curriculum that focused on high-stakes testing and rote memorization of facts (Dole,
Bloom, & Kowalske, 2016; Grant & Hill, 2006, Madaus & Russell, 2010). In 2010, the State of
California adopted the Common Core State Standards as the California State Standards, and the
pendulum began to swing back towards student-centered practices intended to re-engage students
in learning and develop inquiry-based skills that encouraged critical thinking, collaboration,
creativity, and communication (P21, 2009).
The expanded use of the Internet made the world a much smaller place, where businesses
and educators communicated on a global scale. People were not only using technology for
informational purposes, but for social purposes as well (Prensky, 2001). Online interactions
became a way of life and using the Internet as a learning platform was became increasingly
popular.
Blended learning grew out of distance learning and helped to bridge the gap between
traditional face-to-face learning in a brick-and-mortar classroom, and online learning that took
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 86
place in an off-campus location (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kenny, 2015). Blended
learning pedagogy shifted the focus away from seat time and allowed students to demonstrate
mastery of a concept with control over time, place, path, and/or pace (Bower, et al., 2015). The
emphasis was shifted away from teacher-centered practices, and allowed students to engage in
student-centered experiences that had the potential to provide for deeper learning.
The background of the problem states that the era of high stakes testing left lingering
effects on teaching and learning. Students became disengaged in schooling as a result of the
drill-and-kill instructional methods that did little more than prepare students for state testing
(Madaus & Russell, 2010). It was common practice to divide students into low achievement,
middle achievement, and high achievement groups depending on how well they did, or did not
do, on standardized tests. Teachers worked with identified groups of students to practice test-
taking strategies and helped them achieve the next level of proficiency on the state test.
This shift towards test-taking practices in Reading and Math helped to narrow the
curriculum and kept already marginalized students from attaining their full academic potential
(Milner, 2010.) As time passed, educators came to realize that there were gaps in student
learning, and business leaders became critical of schools for not teaching students how to
problem solve, communicate effectively, and think critically (Dweck, Walton, & Cohen, 2014;
Wagner, 2008). The adoption of the CCSS was a step towards rectifying the problem. The
CCSS is a set of common standards that includes academic benchmarks, and “soft-skill”
competencies in the areas of critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication (P21,
2009).
With the hope of re-engaging students in learning, the curriculum was expanded to
include opportunities for students to sustain learning by exploring topics of choice, with flexible
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 87
pacing (Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013). The rise of blended learning came out of this
movement where students learned in traditional brick-and-mortar classrooms, with extended
opportunities for online learning. Students had the opportunity for anytime-everywhere learning
that was personalized to fit the interests and needs of individual students. The pedagogical roots
of blended learning can be traced back to the constructivist philosophies of Dewey (1929) and
Piaget (1976). As students worked together to develop meaning, they entered a social-cultural
element of learning that was made popular by Vygotsky (1978). Together the socio-
constructivist theories supported blended learning instruction by allowing students to interact
with mediatory tools, as well as develop deeper understandings through social interactions with
others, as seen in Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (2000) Community of Inquiry framework.
The purpose of this study was to explore and gather data on high school teachers’
perceptions about their role in a blended learning classroom. As part of the discovery, teachers
were asked about their pedagogical approach to blended learning instruction, and the
instructional strategies that were used to deliver the curriculum. The findings identified in this
study will be used to inform future practice and identify potential areas for professional learning
that will help to improve blended learning practice. The following questions guided the research:
1. How do high school teachers perceive their roles in blended learning environments?
2. How do high school teachers describe their pedagogical approach to blended learning
instruction to include teaching presence?
The study participants were selected based on administrator and peer recommendations of
reputable, blended learning instructors who used blended learning practices for two years or
more. The design of the study was interview only, which allowed the researcher to conduct a
dive deep in identifying perceptions, instructional practices, and lesson delivery models.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 88
In the next section I will present the study findings and discuss the implications for
current and future blended learning practice. I will present the findings through the lens of access
and equity and discuss whether blended learning promotes or prevents access to an expanded
curriculum.
Summary of Findings
Chapter 4 provided a discussion on the data that was collected, and the themes that
emerged during the teacher interviews. The research questions guided the interviews, which
provided insight into high school teachers’ perspectives on their role in a blended learning
environment, and their pedagogical approach to blended learning instruction. Data collected
during the interviews provided answers to the research questions and revealed emergent themes
in blended learning instruction.
The teachers interviewed in this study shared commonalities in practice; however, each
had different perceptions about the definition of blended learning, and their role as an instructor
in a blended learning classroom. The themes that emerged from the responses to the first
research question ranged from switching instructional tools from pencil and paper to using a
Chromebook in a technology-rich classroom, to deeper instructional shifts that empowered
students to become self-directed in their learning. Perceptions about a teacher’s role in a blended
learning environment also varied from providing direct instruction as the keeper of knowledge,
to a transformative role as a facilitator or guide in directing students towards a path of deeper
learning (Means et al., 2013).
A review of the responses in Table 3 and Table 4 showed the varying descriptions in
response to each teacher’s personal definition of blended learning, and their role in a blended
learning environment. The data indicated that more than half of the teachers interviewed in this
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 89
study described blended learning instruction as students “working at their own pace”, “accessing
content through a variety of methods, other than myself as the teacher”, and students being “self-
directed” in integrating “real life experiences into the classroom”. The other teachers indicated
that they used online content more as an organizational tool, so students can “access it from
school or at home” or when students needed to “review a lesson when they are absent from
class.”
Five of the nine teachers interviewed perceived their role as being “transformed to a
guide or facilitator,” who “effectively provides feedback” and “lets the students do most of the
work” in the classroom. The remaining four teachers described some misunderstandings with
the shift towards a student-centered, blended learning pedagogy, and maintained that they were
the ones who were in charge of “providing students with all the materials and links to what it is
that I want them to know”. Some teachers described a sense of responsibility, or guilt, for not
teaching students using traditional teaching methods, stating, “If students do not perform well on
assessments, it is ultimately my fault for not teaching them.”
It is in statements such as this that we see lingering effects of high-stakes testing, and a
teacher-centered pedagogy that places the onus directly on the teacher, releasing the student from
any responsibility as a learner (Madaus & Russell, 2010). There remains a need for additional
professional development in student-centered teaching practices that help teachers to understand
the pedagogical shift from teachers as keepers of knowledge, to students as self-directed learners
who think critically to solve problems, and effectively communicate new learning with others.
Some additional key findings were the varying degrees of access and equity in blended
learning practice, and the lack of coherence in lesson delivery models associated with blended
learning instruction. The discussion included a description of how teachers viewed the potential
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 90
of blended learning to expand opportunities for underserved students, and how it had the
potential to provide access and equity to an expanded curriculum that could narrow the
opportunity gap (P21, 2009; Bower, et al., 2015; Graham, 2013; Milner, 2010; Wagner, 2014).
The key findings pertaining to access and equity were consistent across schools and
districts, showing the prevalent challenge of accessing a personal device, and Wi-Fi connectivity
outside of the school building. All of the teachers interviewed stated that this challenge
influenced the way they structured the class and how much content was posted to the online
platform. This finding was impactful, since about half of the teachers interviewed described a
true pedagogical shift toward student-centered learning, while the other half described practices
consistent with teacher-centered learning. Some of the teachers provided a definition of blended
learning that included reference to control over time, place, path and/or pace, but in reality,
students with limited access to a personal device and Wi-Fi did not have any control over his or
her learning, and were often made to learn only while on school property. The lack of access
prohibited the teacher’s ability to provide student-centered learning opportunities and helped to
maintain the traditionally held teacher-centered practices.
The themes of access and equity varied among delivery models and instructional
practices, and the data were reflective of the community in which each teacher worked and may
not be generalizable to the broader view of students in underserved communities. However, the
topic should be further studied in areas where socio-economic status effects the ability to access
mainstream services, such as Wi-Fi at home.
During the interviews, teachers described the benefit of blended learning as being that
students can “work at their own pace” and “view the material prior to coming to class.” Although
in practice, seven of the nine teachers interviewed did not hold that expectation for students and
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 91
described instances where they mitigated the lack of connectivity by developing an alternate
curriculum, or a watered-down version, so students could access the lesson content while at
school. This raised the question of whether underserved students who participated in a blended
learning curriculum were truly able to benefit from expanded access to online content, or if the
inability to access the curriculum outside of the school building prohibited them from attaining
equitable learning experiences.
Implications
The implications for these findings are to expand the scope of practice for blended
learning teachers and provide a deeper understanding of the pedagogy behind blended learning
practices using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework developed by Garrison, Anderson,
and Archer (2000). The first implication is for pre-service and in-service training, on socio-
cultural learning (Vygotsky, 1978), and the benefits of making pedagogical shifts from teacher-
centered to student-centered teaching practices (Bower, et al., 2015; Dole, Bloom, & Kowalske,
2016; Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013). A second implication for the study is to expand the
understanding of teaching presence in a blended learning environment by using the CoI
framework to develop an understanding of the connections between cognitive presence, social
presence, and teaching presence. A third implication for this study is to establish a common
definition for blended learning that is accepted by the community and used in the field of
blended learning research. Finally, the last implication is to identify ways that schools can
expand equity and access to a broader curriculum, thereby expanding opportunities for
underserved students (Belfanz, Herzog, & MacIver, 2007; Milner, 2010).
In reference to the first implication, teachers interviewed during this study were
identified as early adopters who have been using blended learning strategies for between two- to
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 92
–five years. Teachers described their training during the initial implementation phase and stated
that they had not received any recent training on blended learning instruction since the initial
training phase 5 years ago. This appeared to be generalizable to the teachers at the schools, and
districts, where these particular teachers worked. It is likely that teachers in these schools would
benefit from additional professional development in the field of blended learning instruction,
lesson design, and delivery models. This type of training would be beneficial to both pre-service
and in-service teachers and would allow them to gain a better understanding of shifts in
instructional pedagogy that define their role as a blended learning instructor. Additional training
will also help teachers to understand the differences between student-centered blended learning
instructional practices, and teacher-centered practices that linger in technology-rich classrooms.
The second implication, coinciding with the need for professional development, is
training in the Community of Inquiry framework that identifies the links between social
presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence. As mentioned earlier in this section,
training in this area would help teachers to better understand their role in a blended learning
environment and how their role largely contributes to the success of the class. This is important
because it can be difficult to explain the practices to parents, students, and administrators who
are unfamiliar with the pedagogy of blended learning.
Along with those implications, the third implication is in reference to each teacher’s
varying definition of blended learning instruction. Research by Skrypnyk et al. (2015) stated that
the field of blended learning instruction is still relatively new, and therefore there remains a lack
of empirical research on the topic. As the field has grown and expanded over the last 10 years,
there has been a consorted effort to clearly define blended learning practice and delineate what
blended learning is, from what it is not.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 93
Studies by Bernard et al. (2014), McCabe and O’Connor (2014), Schmidt et al. (2014),
and Skrypnyk et al. (2015), have all stated the roles in blended learning must be clearly
understood by all stakeholders before the shift can take place. Therefore, additional professional
development in the areas of clearly defining blended learning instruction, shifting practice from
teacher-centered to student-centered, and understanding the Community of Inquiry framework,
would be beneficial in helping to clarify understanding and further instructional practices.
In discussing the final implication, the data revealed that many students are challenged
with stable Wi-Fi access from home, and are unable to fully engage in the blended learning
curriculum as intended. The implications for practice are to help schools identify ways to
expand access to public Wi-Fi and support students in developing anytime-everywhere access to
learning. Schools and districts should seek out funding to expand opportunities for students in
underserved communities and ensure equitable access to a high-quality, student-centered
curriculum that prepares them for college, career, and civic-life (Bower, et al., 2015; Burris &
Welner, 2005; Milner, 2010).
With that, there remains the promise of blended learning to provide students with access
to courses and an expanded curriculum. In some cases, urban schools may not be able to provide
certain courses due to master scheduling conflicts, while other schools may not have access to
qualified instructors who are available to teach the course. Works by Anderson (2009), and
Lewis & Allen (2004), shared how blended learning has the potential to fill some of these gaps
and provide expanded access to the curriculum, however, according to the teachers interviewed
in this study, none of the schools used blended or online learning curriculum for this purpose. In
this case, the implication is for schools or districts to identify specialists in the area of blended
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 94
learning that would help to move the work forward by engaging in these opportunities and
expanding equity and access to an expanded curriculum for high school students.
Implications that arose as a result the COVID-19 school closures were aligned to the
findings of this study. Recent studies from Shamir-Inbal and Blau (2021), Aguliera, and
Nightengale-Lee (2020), Schwartz, Ahmed, Leschitz, Uziccanin, and Uscher-Pines, (2020), and
Harris-Packer and Segol (2015) all stated that the most noted needs for equitable practices in
distance learning are access to a working device for all PreK-12 students, and access to free
public Wi-fi in both urban and rural areas around the world. Additionally, the second highest
implication is the need for quality professional development in blended learning instruction.
Of the four implications identified in this study, three can be supported by professional
development in the changing field of blended learning, while equity and access can be supported
through policy changes that are supported by increased funding and additional personnel to
coach, mentor, and facilitate additional course options for students. In the wake of the COVID-
19 pandemic, federal and state officials distributed CARES ACT funding grants to schools,
thereby providing much needed extra funding for the purpose of expanding access to technology
(devices and Wi-Fi hotspots) and mitigating learning loss due to inequitable practices (Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE, 2020).
Overall, data from this study reveals that although there has been a subtle shift in
practice, teachers still require more time to internalize the pedagogical changes toward student-
centered learning. Along with time, there remains a need for coaches and mentors who have a
deep knowledge of blended learning pedagogy and instructional practices, and access to
increased funding that will allow schools to address structural deficiencies in underserved
communities.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 95
Recommendations for Research
Based on the review of literature, and the data collected in this study, I have identified
four recommendations for research that will help to enhance the field of study, and three general
recommendations that will support shifts towards student-centered learning. Much of the
research in distance education, online learning, and blended learning, has been conducted with
students in institutes of higher learning, and with instructors in higher learning and virtual
schools. The increased use of technology, and 1:1 device programs, has created an abundance of
technology rich-classrooms, and blended learning courses. We need to study these programs
based on the following recommendations for research.
My primary recommendation is to conduct more research in rural and urban, K-12 public
schools, to determine whether the increased use of technology is promoting or prohibiting equity
and an expanded access to the curriculum. With that, my second recommendation is to expand
blended learning research studies to include more studies in TK-12 settings, using TK-12
instructors, and students. These types of studies will expand our understanding of blended
learning instruction in public schools and will help to identify common practices that support
deeper learning.
In addition, my third recommendation for the field is to examine student perceptions
about blended learning instruction, and describe how students perceive teacher interactions, and
teaching presence in their blended learning classrooms. For this study, I focused on the element
of teaching presence, however future studies could be expanded to include an examination of
social presence and cognitive presence, based on the Community of Inquiry framework. The
data from student’s perceptions would likely reveal additional implications for pre-service
teaching programs and methodology courses, and in-service teachers.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 96
My fourth recommendation is that following several years of blended learning practice,
there be a longitudinal study that identifies best practices and common understandings about the
definition and role of blended learning instructors, as well as outcomes for expanded learning
opportunities for underserved students. The longitudinal study could begin with elementary aged
students as they enter blended learning classrooms and follow them through the years as they
engage in student-centered learning practices. The study could describe their level of
collaborative practices, deeper understanding of concepts, critical thinking and problem-solving
skills, in comparison to students who remained in traditional teacher-centered instructional
models. It could follow students throughout elementary, middle school and high school and
identify implications, or expanded opportunities for college and career. All the recommendations
for research should be part of a progression that develops as the knowledge and experience in the
field of blended learning grows.
The fifth recommendation is to develop a Professional Learning Community (PLC)
model of ongoing coaching, mentoring and professional development that is similar to the
teacher induction model. The limited blended learning training model did not do enough to
sustain the shifts in instructional practice and did not provide the ongoing support that is required
to deepen the understanding of adult learners. To really support teachers as they make lasting
shifts towards student-centered learning, it is recommended that a coaching model be designed
for teachers to experience a blended learning course as learners. This will help blended learning
teachers to identify practices and course strategies that promote collaboration, problem-solving,
and inquiry, through the lens of teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence as
described in the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000).
Experiencing the professional development model as learners will help teachers to understand
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 97
the importance of their role as course designers and facilitators, and should also provide time for
them to interact with peers as they learn from each other and make meaning together.
Similar to the induction model, early adopters of this professional development model
should be cohorted to work with coaches in their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky,
1978) using socio-cultural learning practices to facilitate discussions, model engagement
strategies, engage in reflective practice, and provide just in time support. The ongoing
professional development model should be sustained over several years and should include a
system that allows teachers who experienced the model to eventually become the trainers, and
mentor the next cohort of blended learning instructors.
Along with the recommendation for increased professional development in blended
learning comes the sixth recommendation, which is the need for increased funding. It is
recommended that schools and districts examine their budget to identify sustained funding to
design and implement ongoing professional development and coaching models that will lead to
lasting improvements in student achievement. Given our current circumstances, one likely source
would be the CARES Act funding that has been provided to schools and districts to help mitigate
the unfinished learning, or learning loss, that resulted as of the school closures during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Additional revenue sources may come from Title I federal funding that
supports the needs of disadvantaged students and aims to provide a more equitable learning
experience. The findings from this study can be used to highlight the need for professional
development and can serve as a rationale for increased funding allocations for structures that
support the shift towards student-centered instructional practices.
The final recommendation is to examine the equity aspect of expanded course offerings
and identify ways that schools can take advantage of blended and online courses to increase
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 98
access to the curriculum. Expanded course offerings allow students to pursue courses that may
fall outside of traditional pathways, due to funding, credential limitations, staffing shortages, or
an impacted master schedule. The promise of blended learning is that it provides additional
options for educators to think outside the box and expand opportunities for learning with flexible
pacing, and personalized learning practices that support student voice and choice (Horn &
Stacker, 2011; Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013). It is recommended that schools limited in
course offerings use this opportunity to identify options that are interesting and engaging to
underserved students, and create student-centered opportunities for an expanded curriculum that
promotes collaboration, communication, creativity, and communication skills that are desired by
the workforce.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into teachers’ perceptions about their role in
a blended learning classroom, and their pedagogical approach to blended learning instruction.
As an educator, I have witnessed the shift towards blended learning instruction to re-engage
students in learning by personalizing the curriculum. Over the last six years, I have worked with
students and teachers as they engage in a blended learning curriculum. I have witnessed the
struggles and triumphs that come along with implementing an innovative curriculum, and I
believe that we are still in the infancy of blended learning instruction. There remains a need for
additional research and a deeper understanding behind the shifts to a student-centered pedagogy.
Today, teachers are bridging the waters between the formerly accepted teacher-centered
practices, and the recent shifts towards student-centered practices. Over the last year and a half,
the pandemic forced a shift to distance learning, that was implemented as an emergency protocol,
without thoughtful training and a thorough understanding of the task. Some teachers were ready
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 99
to make the transition, and others were not. This challenge has provided the opportunity to
reflect on our educational system, and develop alternative ways of preparing our students for
college and career.
Nevertheless, at this time, we can use the results and implications of studies like this to
target professional development and provide additional training in blended learning pedagogy.
We can also use the findings to advocate for expanded opportunities for our students living in
underserved communities, and ensure that they receive equitable access to an expanded
curriculum that prepares them for life after high school.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 100
References
Aguilera, E., & Nightengale-Lee, B. (2020). Emergency remote teaching across urban and rural
contexts: Perspectives on educational equity. Information and Learning Sciences
121(5/6), 471-478.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and
research questions. Handbook of distance education, 129-144.
Anderson, T. (2009). A Rose by Any Other Name: Still Distance Education--A Response to DR
Garrison--" Implications of Online and Blended Learning for the Conceptual
Development and Practice of Distance Education". Journal of Distance Education, 23(3),
111-116.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97.
Attard, A., Di Loio, E., Geven, K., & Santa, R. (2010). Student centered learning: An insight into
theory and practice. Partos Timisoara, Bucharest, 6-15.
Attewell, J., & Savil-Smith, C. (Eds.), 2005. Mobile learning anytime everywhere. A book of
papers from MLEARN 2004. Learning and Skills Development Agency, London.
Balfanz, R., MacIver, L., & Herzog, D. J. (2007). Preventing Student Disengagement and
Keeping Students on the Graduation Path in Urban Middle-Grades Schools: Early
Identification and Effective Interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223-235.
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-
analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 101
the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122.
BLOOM’S, T. M. E. (1965). Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability
system. American educational research journal, 42(2), 231-268.
Bourdieu, P. (2011). The forms of capital. (1986). Cultural theory: An anthology, 1, 81-93.
Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and
implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a
cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17.
Burris, C. C., & Welner, K. G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(8), 594-598.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). How disruptive innovation will
change the way we learn. Education Week, 27(39), 25-36.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (Fourth ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Cunningham, U. (2014). Teaching the disembodied: Othering and activity systems in a blended
synchronous learning situation. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 15(6).
Dewey, J. (1929). My pedagogic creed. Progressive Education Association.
Dole, S., Bloom, L., & Kowalske, K. (2016). Transforming pedagogy: Changing perspectives
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 102
from teacher-centered to learner-centered. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, 10(1), 1.
Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). An analysis of research
trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and
Higher Education, 17, 90–100.
Dweck, C. S., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2014). Academic Tenacity: Mindsets and Skills
that Promote Long-Term Learning. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Fischer, K. W., & Rose, L. T. (2001). Webs of Skills: How Students Learn. Educational
Leadership, 59(3), 6-12.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning.
Seattle: Creative Commons.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education 2(2-3), 87-105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and
computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of distance
education, 15(1), 7-23.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online
learning: Interaction is not enough. The American journal of distance education, 19(3),
133-148.
Getting Smart. Show What You Know: A Landscape Analysis of Competency-Based Education,
XQ Institute, 2018.
Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 103
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. Handbook of
distance education, 3, 333-350.
Grant, M. M., & Hill, J. R. (2006). Weighing the risks with the rewards: Implementing student-
centered pedagogy within high-stakes testing. Understanding teacher stress in an age of
accountability, 19-42.
Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods
and approach. Springer.
Hall, A. (2007). Vygotsky goes online: Learning design from a socio-cultural perspective.
In Learning and socio-cultural Theory: Exploring modern Vygotskian perspectives
international workshop 2007 (Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 6).
Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Drysdale, J. S. (2012). An analysis of high
impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Education, 33(3),
381-413.
Hampton, C., Reeping, D., & Ozkan, D. S. (2021). Positionality Statements in Engineering
Education Research: A Look at the Hand that Guides the Methodological Tools. Studies
in Engineering Education, 1(2), 126–141. DOI: http://doi.org/10.21061/see.13
Harris-Packer, J.D., & Segol, G. (2015). An empirical evaluation of distance learning’s
effectiveness in the K-12 setting. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(1), 4-17.
Holmberg, B. (2005). Theory and practice of distance education. Routledge.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Sage.
Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of blended learning. Mountain View, CA:
Innosight Institute, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org
/innosight/wpcontent/uploads/2011/01/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 104
Hunsaker, S. L. (1994). Adjustments to traditional procedures for identifying underserved
students: Successes and failures. Exceptional Children, 61(1), 72-76.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and
computer‐mediated communication in distance education. American journal of distance
education, 9(2), 7-26.
Kellaghan, T., & Greaney, V. (1992). Using examinations to improve education. A study in
fourteen African countries. Washington DC: Banque mondiale.
Lai, K. W. (1993). Teachers as facilitators in a computer‐supported learning environment.
Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 2(2), 127-137.
Lewis, D., & Allan, B. (2004). Virtual learning communities: A guide for practitioners.
McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative research in education: A User's Guide: A user's guide. Sage.
Lust, G., Collazo, N. A. J., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2012). Content Management Systems:
Enriched learning opportunities for all?. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 795-808.
Madaus, G., & Russell, M. (2010). Paradoxes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Education,
190(1-2), 21-30.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage
publications.
McCabe, A., & O’Connor, U. (2014). Student-centered learning: The role and responsibility of
the lecturer. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 350-359.
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(3), 1-
47.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 105
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milner, H. R. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems approach. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/ITP.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC:
Authors.
Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-
Based Nursing, 18, 34-35.
Oakes, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Matchmaking: The dynamics of high school tracking decisions.
American Education Research Journal, 32(1), 3-33.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). (2020). Elementary and Secondary
School Relief Fund. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from https://oese.ed.gov/
offices/education-stabilization-fund/elementary-secondary-school-emergency-relief-fund/
Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators. Newbury Park,
CA: Corwin Press.
Ozdamli, F. (2012). Pedagogical framework of m-learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 31, 927-931.
Parks, R. A., Oliver, W., & Carson, E. (2016). The status of middle and high school instruction:
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 106
Examining professional development, social desirability, and teacher readiness for
blended pedagogy in the southeastern United States. Journal of Online Learning
Research, 2(2), 79-101.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21st century learning.
Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., & Powell, A. (2013). Mean What You Say: Defining and Integrating
Personalized, Blended and Competency Education. International Association for K-12
Online Learning.
Patrick, S., & Sturgis, C. (2015). Maximizing Competency Education and Blended Learning:
Insights from Experts. Competency Works Issue Brief. International Association for K-
12 Online Learning.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In Piaget and his school (pp. 11-23). Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Rodriguez, V. (2012). The teaching brain and the end of the empty vessel. Mind, Brain, and
Education, 6(4), 177-185.
Rogers, P. C., Graham, C. R., Rasmussen, R., Campbell, J. O., & Ure, D. M. (2003). Case 2:
Blending face-to-face and distance learners in a synchronous class: Instructor and learner
experiences. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 245-51.
Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A., &
Woods, J. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education:
A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271–291.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 107
Shamir-Inbal, T., & Blau, I. (2021). Facilitating emergency remote K-12 teaching in computer-
enhanced virtual learning environments during COVID-19 pandemic- blessing or curse?
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 0(0), 1-29.
Schwartz, H. L., Ahmed, F., Leschitz, J. T., Uziccanin, A., & Uscher-Pines, L. (2020).
Opportunities and challenges in using online learning to maintain continuity of
instruction in K-12 schools in emergencies. RAND Corporation Publishing.
Skrypnyk, O., Joksimović, S., Kovanović, V., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2015).
The history and state of blended learning.
Siemens, G., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university: A review of
the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning.
Smith, M. L., & Shepard, L. A. (1988). Kindergarten readiness and retention: A qualitative study
of teachers’ beliefs and practices. American Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 307-
333.
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student
perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The internet and higher
education, 7(1), 59-70.
Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2009). Introduction to blended learning practices. In Effective blended
learning practices: Evidence-based perspectives in ICT-facilitated education (pp. 1-19).
IGI Global.
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute.
Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. J. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Boston,
MA: Jobs for the Future.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1992). Questions and answers about radical constructivism.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 108
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the
development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Wagner, T. (2008). Even our “best” schools are failing to prepare students for 21st-century
careers and citizenship. Educational Leadership.
Wagner, T. (2014). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach the new
survival skills our children need and what we can do about it. Basic Books.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer‐mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The
modern language journal, 81(4), 470-481.
Watson, J., Pape, L., Murin, A., Gemin, B., & Vashaw, L. (2014). Keeping pace with K-12
digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group.
Weiss, R. S. (1994) Learning From Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview
Studies.
White, C. P., Ramirez, R., Smith, J. G., & Plonowski, L. (2010). Simultaneous delivery of a face-
to-face course to on-campus and remote off-campus students. TechTrends, 54(4), 34-40.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 109
Appendix A: Informed Consent
Greetings,
Hello, my name is Kim Garcia. I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern
California, Rossier School of Education. You are being invited to participate in an interview that
will help me learn about high school teacher’s perceptions about their role in a blended learning
classroom.
You have been identified for this endeavor because of your position as a reputable high school
teacher with two or more years of experience in blended learning education. Your perspective is
critical to the success of the study. The purpose of this study is to add to the body of research in
learning about teachers’ perspectives on blended learning. It will take approximately 30 minutes
to participate in the virtual interview.
Your participation in this study is voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks
associated with this project. However, if you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you
can withdraw from the survey at any point. If you have questions at any time about the study or
the procedures, (or you experience adverse effects as a result of participating in this study), you
may contact the researcher, Kim Garcia at (714) 272-XXXX or kagarcia@usc.edu or her faculty
advisor Dr. Paula Carbone at paula.carbone@rossier.usc.edu. If you have questions about your
rights as a participant, contact the Office of Research Compliance Officer at __________. Thank
you very much for your time and support.
Sincerely,
Kim Garcia
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 110
Appendix B: Interview Questions
First Part is to Establish Rapport-Interview Questions:
1. Tell me about your teaching background.
a. What credentials do you hold?
b. Where have you spent the majority of your time teaching? (Location?)
c. How long have you been teaching? (High School?)
d. Do you have any additional endorsements?
2. Tell me about your experience in blended learning environments.
a. What is your definition of blended learning?
b. What was your first experience with blended learning?
3. What do you enjoy most about teaching in blended learning environments?
4. What do you enjoy least about teaching in blended learning environments?
5. Is there anything else you would like to share about your participation in blended
learning?
Deeper-Learning-Interview Questions:
6. In your own words, describe the term “blended learning environment.”
7. How do you see your role in blended learning environments?
a. Has your role changed over the years?
8. What factors do you consider when designing blended learning lessons?
b. Is there a certain pedagogical approach or strategy you use?
c. What, if anything, do you do differently in blended learning versus traditional
face-to-face learning?
d. How do you believe your approach effects student engagement and learning?
BLENDED LEARNING AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 111
9. What, if any, challenges do you encounter in developing blended learning lessons?
10. How do you ensure that students have equitable access to the online content and blended
learning instruction?
e. Do you use technology or instructional accommodations to help ensure equity and
access?
11. How do you design lessons/classes?
f. Do you organize content in a particular way?
12. How do you facilitate both online and face-to-face discourse?
g. How does this impact community and connectedness in the class?
13. How do you interact with students during blended learning lessons?
h. How do you provide direct instruction?
i. How do you provide feedback during blended learning?
j. How do you provide praise during blended learning?
k. How do you provide correction during blended learning?
14. How do you assess student achievement in blended learning environments?
l. Does it vary from assessments in traditional face-to-face environments?
15. Is there anything you would like to add that would help me understand your role or
pedagogical approach to instruction in blended learning environments?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to learn about high school teachers’ perceptions about their role in a blended learning classroom and their pedagogical approaches to blended learning instruction. The element of teaching presence, taken from the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, was used to examine the socio-constructivist pedagogy, originally used in distance education and online learning programs. The study methods included interviewing nine high school teachers, who have established reputations as blended learning instructors, having practiced blended learning pedagogy for two years or more. Findings from this study showed that there is a lack of coherence among blended learning definitions, instructional practices, and delivery models. There are also varying perceptions about the role of the teacher in blended learning environments, as well as varying degrees of access and equity. This study identified a need for professional development in blended learning pedagogy, and an examination of whether blended learning truly lives up to the promise of providing expanded opportunities for underserved students.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms
PDF
Blended learning in a credit recovery program: emerging insights and issues
PDF
Multimodal composing and teacher preparation
PDF
The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes
PDF
Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study
PDF
The role of teachers in academic discussion
PDF
Efficacy drivers that aid teacher professional development transfer
PDF
Digital learning in K12: putting teacher professional identity on the line
PDF
Technology practices and 21st century learning: a high school case study
PDF
Embracing the challenge of growing the “T” in STEM and its role in teaching and learning: a case study
PDF
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
PDF
A case study about the implied and perceived messages sent by one teacher through instruction for academic and behavioral expectations of students
PDF
Application of professional learning outcomes into the classroom: an evaluation study
PDF
The effect of opportunity gaps: the charge for culturally relevant pedagogy in middle school social studies classes
PDF
Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment
PDF
Teacher perceptions of Marzano's instructional strategies in traditional and virtual classrooms
PDF
Technology integration at a 21st-century school
PDF
Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners
PDF
How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?
Asset Metadata
Creator
Garcia, Kimberly Ann
(author)
Core Title
Blended learning: a look into teachers’ perceptions on their role in a 21st century classroom
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2021-12
Publication Date
12/17/2021
Defense Date
11/01/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
21st century classroom,blended learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,opportunity gap,socio-cultural learning,student-centered learning,teachers' perceptions,teaching presence
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Carbone, Paula (
committee chair
), Crawford, Jenifer (
committee member
), Pike, Rosenda (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kagarcia@usc.edu,kimmygarcia22@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC18652800
Unique identifier
UC18652800
Legacy Identifier
etd-GarciaKimb-10309
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Garcia, Kimberly Ann
Type
texts
Source
20211221-wayne-usctheses-batch-905-nissen
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
21st century classroom
blended learning
opportunity gap
socio-cultural learning
student-centered learning
teachers' perceptions
teaching presence