Blended Learning in Higher Education: Diversifying Models and Practical

Recommendations for Researchers

Raisa I. Platonova1† Natalia A. Orekhovskaya2† Saule B. Dautova3† Elena V.

Martynenko4† Nina I. Kryukova5† Servet Demir6*†
1
 Department of Mechanical Engineering, North-Eastern Federal University, Yakutsk,
Russia
2
 Department of Humanities, Financial University Under the Government of the Russian
Federation, Moscow, Russia
3
 Director of Science Center “Intellectual Nation,” Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical
University, Almaty, Kazakhstan
4
 Head of the Department of Theory and History of Journalism, Peoples’ Friendship
University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia
5
 Department of State and Legal Disciplines, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics,
Moscow, Russia
6
 Independent Researcher, Gaziantep, Turkey

Blended learning is gaining popularity because it has shown to be a successful method for
accommodating an increasingly varied student body while enhancing the learning environment
by incorporating online teaching materials. Higher education research on blended learning
contributes to the blended learning literature. The ideas for future researchers are a vital
component of research-based research articles. This study aims to consolidate the
recommendations made for future studies. Research articles published in Scope-indexed journals
over the past 5 years were analyzed in this context. Each cited passage from the research was
read and coded independently in this analysis. After a period of time, the codes were merged into
categories and themes. In the results section, direct citations were used to support the codes. The
number of publications increased starting in 2017 and continuing through 2020. In the year 2020,
most articles were published. Approximately half of the publications provide recommendations
for future research. The researchers’ recommendations were gathered under the titles “Research
Content” and “Replication and Method” the researchers’ recommendations were gathered.

Introduction

Definition of Blended Learning

In November 2002, a few colleagues attending the Annual Sloan-C Conference on Online
Learning in Orlando, Florida, discussed a novel phenomenon: college teachers combining face-
to-face and online learning strategies and resources in their classrooms (Picciano et al., 2014).
Blended learning, also known as hybrid learning or mixed-mode education, is an instructional
approach that combines the use of one or two different learning methodologies with the more
conventional model of instruction in a classroom setting (Graham, 2006; Lee et al., 2017; Thai et
al., 2017; Vasyura et al., 2020). Improving data analysis and computation skills has contributed
to the popularity of the blended learning instructional style (Lu et al., 2018). Integration of face-
to-face learning experiences in the classroom with online learning experiences in a thoughtful
manner (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). Learners engage in collaborative activities utilizing
various online and offline resources in a mixed learning environment. Many different models of
convergence between technologically enabled settings and more conventional ones, such as
virtual labs, have been proposed (De Jong et al., 2013). Graham (2013) examined the many
definitions of blended learning. He concluded that the word is most frequently used to refer to
the practice of combining traditional face-to-face education with online learning.

Current State in Blended Learning

There are several recommendations available online on the appropriate face-to-face interaction
ratio. For instance, 50 % of teaching can be completed online and 50 % in person (Bernard et al.,
2009). However, Allen et al. (2007) suggest that the percentage of online classes should be
anywhere between 30 and 79 %. Also, experts recommend a blending ratio of 60 % e-Learning
and 40 % face-to-face learning for blended learning (Banyen et al., 2016).

On college and university campuses, the use of blended learning as a method of instruction is
experiencing rapid growth (Bernard et al., 2009; Porter et al., 2014; ElSayary, 2021; Chen,
2022). Researchers have carried out implementation and study with the presumption that the
blended learning application offers various advantages. They used blended learning in higher
education studies (Suleri and Suleri, 2018).

These blended approaches encourage both individual learning and cooperation (Lim and Wang,
2016; Talan and Gulsecen, 2019) and enable more channels of communication among students
as well as between students and their teachers (McCutcheon et al., 2018; Shu and Gu, 2018).
Blended learning classes offer a unique environment in which to analyze the level of
involvement shown by students (Hasanah and Malik, 2020). For students to successfully engage
in the online components of the course, they will need to develop skills for navigating the
various modalities of teaching and increasing their self-motivation level (Norberg et al.,
2011; Baragash and Al-Samarraie, 2018; Bervell et al., 2020). It is believed that blended learning
is a significant factor in determining academic achievement (Bernard et al., 2009; Means et al.,
2013), student satisfaction (Zeqiri and Alserhan, 2021), and student retention rates (Pye et al.,
2015).

It has been voiced in different studies (Cortez, 2020; de Brito Lima et al., 2021) that there is a
“new normal” in many educational institutions and disciplines after COVID-19 and that the
blended learning approach has gained serious popularity in this context.

Blended learning preserves student-teacher connection and peer learning. Still, it also can be
more adaptable because students may access a portion of their coursework online and the amount
of time they need to spend in the classroom can be reduced (Phillips et al., 2016).

Some students have voiced issues (Maarop and Embi, 2016) with the design of courses that
combine online with in-class delivery, although blended learning is appealing to institutions and
has unrealized potential (Wang et al., 2015; Andreev et al., 2022). Blended learning courses
combine online with in-class delivery (Bruff et al., 2013; Medina, 2018; Smolyaninova et al.,
2021). Data indicates that the amount of student accomplishment influences the degree to which
one is satisfied with blended learning (Owston et al., 2013; Fisher et al., 2017).

The Importance of Recommendation for Future Studies

In addition to carrying out research responsibly, accurately reporting its findings is also an
essential step (Pruzan, 2016). The fact that suggestions for future researchers are written in
method books is considered important in terms of the research’s quality and its Contribution To
The Field. According to Sahu (2013), it is reasonable to anticipate that a successful research
program will pave the way for many subsequent research initiatives. Each research report has a
portion that focuses on how to expand or continue the current research program to shed more
light on the knowledge base and resolve other connected programs that are working along the
same lines as the recent research activity (Belonovskaya et al., 2021). A good researcher should
also discuss in this part what limitations or gaps exist in the current study program and how these
limitations might be solved in a future research program (Sahu, 2013). An essential component
of the study report is the acceptance of suggestions, which indicate how the quality of future
work may be enhanced and new routes for the continuation of research. These kinds of remarks
can inspire ideas for additional study, point out areas that need to be addressed to improve the
subject and serve as a valuable roadmap for rookie and expert researchers. An indication to the
reader that the author has finished one stage of the research process and is contemplating moving
on to the next step is for the author to state directions for future study in the conclusion of the
research that is being prepared for publication (Mackey and Gass, 2015). No study was
discovered in examining the literature that investigated the suggestion for future research
portions of the studies about blended learning. Due to this, the previous research section could
not be mentioned in the study. This work will contribute significantly in terms of offering a
collective suggestion to future scholars about blended learning. In addition, it contributes to the
research methodology by restating in broad terms the significance of the content of
“recommendations for future researchers.”

Considering this, the purpose of this study was to investigate the recommendations made for
further research in the publications that have been published during the past 5 years on blended
learning in higher education.

Materials and Methods

This study may be categorized as a qualitative study since it is based on qualitative data analysis
on data that was already published in other studies. As a result of the fact that the bibliometric
information for the publications received throughout the study is also investigated, this
information may also be assessed as part of the bibliometric study.

Data Collection
Scopus, one of the most widely used databases, was chosen to collect data. Scopus aids the
research workflow’s efficacy and efficiency (Why choose Scopus - Scopus benefits | Elsevier
solutions, 2018). Scopus was selected as the database of choice since it indexes the top journals
in the field of education and offers the necessary data for bibliometric research. “Blended
Learning” and “Higher Education” were used as the study’s search keys. In the study, the last 5
(2017–2021) years and the conditions of being a published article were added. As a result of the
first search, 2657 articles were obtained. Since the publications will be included in the content
analysis, the restriction that the broadcast language is English has been added. As a result of the
search, 1958 articles were identified. The obtained data were downloaded in CVS format for
analysis.

As seen in Figure 1, the selection and elimination process of the publications has been started.
The 1958 article was primarily examined for duplication. Nine articles that did not meet the
requirement were excluded from the study. The titles and abstracts of the 1949 article were
reviewed. Studies that did not meet the following conditions were excluded from the scope.

Figure 1

FIGURE 1. Flowchart on data collection.

(1) Being based on research
 (2) no theoretical work or conceptual paper
(3) No meta-analysis and meta-synthesis work
(4) No systematic literature review study
(5) Not focusing only on distance education or face-to-face education
(6) Related to higher education
(7) Publication in English
As a result of the scanning, 1406 publications were excluded from the scope of the studies.

At the next stage, the full texts of the studies were reached. Content analysis of the study was
carried out, and it was examined in detail whether it complied with the above conditions. As a
result of the last review, 225 publications were excluded. There are 318 publications left for
content analysis.

Data Analyzes
The articles retrieved as a consequence of scanning through the database were investigated in-
depth, and it was determined whether or not they fulfilled the requirements of the research
objective. At the level of deep analysis, the first thing that is done is to determine whether or not
there is a distinct area for “recommendations for future studies.” It has been pointed out that
articles on this topic often include headings like “the limitations of the study,” “Limitations,”
“Recommendations” and “Research Implications.” Then we check that there is any
recommendation for future researchers. In the following phase, if there is no particular section,
other parts of the paper, such as the conclusion and discussion, were analyzed, and
recommendations for future researchers were cited. Two authors are responsible for controlling
all articles separately and determining excerpt-related sections. Then all teams read
independently and coded each excerpt. To assure reliability, the codes were refined until a
consensus about their use could be reached. Code reliability was accepted 100 %. Then the codes
were merged to form categories and themes. In the findings section, direct quotations were
included to support the Codes.

Findings

While presenting the study data, statistical information about the publications was first shared,
and then the findings obtained from the content analysis were shared.

There was a rise in the number of publications beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2020
(Figure 2). The year 2020 saw the greatest number of publications. Even though there is a
reduction in 2021, it is still significantly greater than in previous years. It is possible that the
mandatory implementation of blended and remote learning procedures as a result of the
pandemic caused the surge that occurred in the years 2020 and 2021.

Figure 2
FIGURE 2. Number of articles over year.
As shown in Figure 3, according to total citation, Computer and Education is the first rank. The
second rank is “Internet and Higher Education.” Based on the number of articles, the first rank is
“Education and Information Technologies” and the second order is “BMC Medical Education”
with ten articles. The last rank is “SAGE Open” with four articles and 53 citations. Due to the
technology dimension in blended learning, journals related to technology and the internet have
naturally come to the fore.

Figure 3

FIGURE 3. Compare the article’s number and total citation based on journal.
When the papers with the highest citations were analyzed (Table 1), they were connected to the
flipped classroom concept, which falls under the umbrella of blended learning. Although it was
released later than the other nine studies, the one by Han and Ellis (2019) made it onto the list of
the top ten. There are several research approaches and methodologies. Studies that follow
participants over time are known as longitudinal studies. Other types of studies include
qualitative and experimental research.

Table 1

TABLE 1. Top 10 most cited article.

When the studies are analyzed (Figure 4), it is found that 66 of the studies have a distinct part
labeled “recommendations” “Future research” or “the limitations of the study” in which
recommendations and proposals for more research might be made. In addition, 43 of the papers
feature additional parts that contain recommendations for the continued study of blended
learning. The word “suggestions” was used as the heading for 23 different articles that offered
advice to professional practitioners. 111 of the 251 papers that did not have a distinct title for
their suggestions had textual advice for future study. These recommendations were written in the
articles. These recommendations were often provided in the form of a distinct paragraph inside
the “result” section; however, in certain instances, they were voiced within the discussion
sections of the respective articles. There was no future study suggestion on blended learning in
any of the remaining 140 of the 251 publications.

Figure 4

FIGURE 4. Connection separate section and recommendations for future studies.

When we classify according to the fields of the studies examined, 53 studies are composed of
non-specific studies. Thirty-one studies are related to the STEM field covering physics,
chemistry, mathematics, science, engineering, and environmental education. Considering the 21
studies in the field of health education together, the STEM field has the highest rate with a total
of 52 studies. Language education comes next with 31 studies. The other 18 studies were
conducted in social science, adult education, sport, and social work.

Content analysis was performed in the “future research proposals” section. These
recommendations fall into two main categories (Figure 5). At the first level, they are research
content, replication, and method. The codes in the first category are “Other data collection tools,”
“Arranging other activities” and “Focusing on components.”

Figure 5
FIGURE 5. Code and categories.
The authors recommended collecting data from other data sources during the research process.
The researcher may have offered such suggestions because they had difficulties collecting in
their context or because they needed different data to enrich the process. Other Data Collection
Tools code is used for 80 studies.

In the study conducted by Gjestvang et al. (2021), interviews were done with the participants
during the data collection process. Based on this result, they stated that “Further research on this
topic should interview blended learning students at the end of the program” in the
recommendations.

Also, “Further study should also focus on variables such as the participants’ English level,
motivation level, autonomy level, learning style, and gender while measuring students’
perceptions of the blended course” (Wang et al., 2021) and “Further studies are planned to
monitor the engagement, satisfaction, and learning outcomes of students as the subject evolves
over a series of semesters.” Fisher et al. (2017) quotes were made to more than one data
collection tool. The inclusion of such data collection aspects will also differentiate the research
process.

The second code is “arranging other activities”: this code includes suggestions for differentiating
the activities done in the learning process. It is coded in 19 articles. For example, “future
research can focus on investigating student engagement in learning scenarios aimed at
presenting new content rather than being limited to revision lessons (de Brito Lima et al.,
2021).” As stated, it is recommended that future studies produce new content.

It is suggested to include other activities according to the course scope in which the blended
learning process is applied. These suggestions are mostly seen in studies where language
teaching is used. For example, a “Conducting similar studies that measure the effect of blended
learning on some aspects related to English learning such as vocabulary, spelling, and
pronunciation” recommendation was presented based on the results of the study in which
blended learning was applied in English teaching by Hijazi and AlNatour (2020).

The other code is “Focusing on other components.” In this coding, blended learning is used
regarding the subject of the applied course and other components related to the concept taught.
This code was used in 20 studies. In the survey conducted by Hasanah and Malik (2020), the
“Future researchers are expected to widen the implementation of the blended learning model not
only in the employability aspects related to critical thinking and communication skills but also in
other competencies based on the discipline on which they focus.” proposal was presented.
Similarly, based on the result of the study by Mese and Dursun (2019), “future studies could
conduct with different kind of elements.” was proposed. In addition, in the survey by Nurkhin et
al. (2020), suggestions were made on the use of LMS, which is a component of blended learning.
The quote in the study is as follows: “It is hoped that future researchers will be able to improve
the ability of online learning management systems they can better implement blended PBL.”

The replication category contains suggestions to repeat the research under certain conditions.
The authors generally support conducting studies that are somewhat similar to the investigation.
In this category, “Other disciplines,” “Implementing other courses,” “Diverse sample,” “Other
participants” and “Larger sample” stand out. “Deep analyzes” and “Long term effect” branches
were evaluated in replications and methodology categories.

The “Other disciplines” code was generally used for studies where blended learning studies were
recommended to be applied to other disciplines and was coded six times. For example, as a result
of the López-Pellisa et al. (2021) survey in the writing assignment, the authors suggested,
“Future research could be expanded to other academic contexts, within and beyond the
humanities, and to other languages.” In the study by Dakduk et al. (2018), a sample was taken to
cover the whole University. The authors recommended more specific studies involving different
disciplines. The authors offer their suggestions: “In future research with executive education,
comparing different professional areas and program content (finance, marketing, human
resources, and management) should be considered since those variables could modify the
relationship to adopt new technologies in executive education.”

The code of “Implementing other courses” is used for suggestions about doing studies that are
done in a narrower scope or that are not done within the scope of one course within the scope of
the other course. Twenty-seven articles of recommendation in this context were encountered. For
example, the study by Ghazal et al. (2018) did not specify a specific course. Based on this result,
the authors used the expression “Based on these limitations, future research designs may
consider examining how different types of courses and activities can influence students’
perception of the LMS environment.” to suggest that the study be carried out within the scope of
a specific course. Hinojo-Lucena et al. (2020), on the other hand, did their work within the scope
of the Applied Sciences I course. Based on the results of the study, it then proposes to do it more
specifically in the courses in the second year. The authors suggest, “For future lines of research,
it is proposed to analyze this teaching and learning process in the second year of Basic
Vocational Training and other modules. “ The study conducted by Bayyat (2020) wanted it to be
applied in different theoretical and practical courses. The author used the phrase “Future
research can explore other dimensions in different theoretical and practical courses, cultures,
and societies.” for this suggestion.
The “Other participants” code suggests that the authors should collect data from different
participants in future studies. This code was used in 8 studies. In the study conducted
by Manzanares et al. (2017), only data were collected from students, and he suggested that
teachers be included in future studies. The recommendation was, “In this study, student-teacher,
student-content, and student-system interactions have been analyzed. However, in future
investigations, student-student and teacher-system relations will be studied to analyze whether
these behavioral patterns influence the results of student learning and can predict the detection
of at-risk students.” It was also stated that other data sources would be needed.

Similarly, in the study by Zimba et al. (2021), collecting data from students and administrators
was suggested. The authors stated, “We recommend that a comparative study be conducted with
social work educators in distance-teaching institutions since all participants in this study were
from contact teaching institutions. We also recommend more research on BL that includes the
voice of the students and university administrators.”

The work meant to be explained with the “diverse sample” code is the enrichment of the group.
This code was used for 13 runs. This code includes suggestions such as collecting data across the
country and collecting data from different education levels. The study by Xu et al.
(2020) included students at a particular university. Based on this result, the authors proposed,
“Further studies of online learning, in more diverse settings and with random assignment of
students, will be required to confirm the potential benefits of blended learning.” Similarly,
“Future research could expand the study in diverse educational settings (Zhu et al., 2021)” and
“Similar studies could be conducted with different participants at other educational levels to
reach a general result and make comparisons (Talan and Gulsecen, 2019),” it has been
suggested to work with various samples by applying it at different education levels.

The “Larger sample” code is especially used by researchers working with small groups. They
have recommended working with large study groups to generalize the studies. This code was
used for 50 runs. The perception of the study group as small also depends on the study
methodology. For example, in the study by Zeqiri and Alserhan (2021), data were collected from
369 people. The authors suggested a “larger sample” based on the study’s results. The authors
expressed this: “Finally, a larger and more balanced sample would benefit this study to
generalize findings on students’ satisfaction with blended learning.” In the study conducted
by Sitthiworachart et al. (2021) on the e-Business Course, there were 25 participants in the
sample. Based on the study results, the authors “further studies need to be conducted to measure
the impact of the proposed blended learning activities on a larger sample or with higher-
achieving students.” suggested working with a larger group. Again, according to the result of the
study conducted by Moradimokhles and Hwang (2020) on 60 nurses, the statement
“Furthermore, the study could be extended to investigate these issues in other students, as the
participants of this study were nursing students.” work is recommended.

The “deep analyzes” code was used eight times for studies where the authors suggested deep
research should be done. According to the results of the study by Dooley et al. (2018), the
authors interact with the expression, “Further studies are required to understand better the
behavior of students interacting with online resources, and the patterns of behavior associated
with engagement and academic performance” with online resources and the patterns of behavior
associated with engagement and academic performance. Again, as a result of the study
by Bouilheres et al. (2020), “Deeper studies are needed to determine the appropriateness and
effectiveness of each activity and/or learning material used in the delivery of every program
having implemented a Blended Learning Model.” is suggested to carry out a detailed study. On
the other hand, Taylor et al. (2018) stated that more detailed analyzes are needed to make sense
of the concepts. The authors expressed this: “Further research could investigate more deeply the
actual meanings of these terms through focus groups with both faculty and administrators.”

Studies in which the “long-term effect” code is expressed in the limitations of a study are short-
term. To express this awareness, the authors suggest that future researchers measure their long-
term effects. This code has been used in 8 publications. For example, in the study by Simko et al.
(2019), the statement “A future study should consider the long-term outcomes of flipped courses
and whether reported initial successes outlast the instructors who first delivered the courses.” is
included. In the study by Shimizu et al. (2019), the expression “we recommend future research
to investigate long-term effects of bPBL” was used.

The researchers also suggested the “Comparative Studies” code, which was used 3 times in the
studies, to conduct comparison studies. Based on the results of the study conducted by Zimba et
al. (2021) on social work education, the authors said, “We recommend that a comparative study
be conducted with social work educators in distance-teaching institutions since all participants
in this study were from contact teaching institutions.” was suggested. On the other hand, Sanjeev
and Natrajan (2019) suggested that a comparison study should be made by differentiating
blended learning with the statement, “There can be a comparative study of different formats of
blended learning.”

The “Longitudinal Studies” code was used in seven studies. The researchers considered their
studies cross-sectional and suggested longitudinal studies for future studies. Based on the result
of the study by Yorganci (2020), she proposed, “Besides, longitudinal studies also should be
carried out to clarify the effects of FL approach on the learning outcomes in the long
term.” Ghazal et al. (2018) suggested a longitudinal study to visualize the LMS interactions used
fully. For this suggestion, the authors used the expression, “Future studies may also consider
conducting a longitudinal study to increase the ability to make causal inferences related to the
students’ use of LMS.”

The “Changing methodology” code used in a total of 25 studies is one of the most common
codes used by researchers. Researchers suggest that the study be repeated by changing the
method or research approach. For example, in the study conducted by Yang and Kuo (2021),
they used a qualitative approach. On the other hand, researchers suggested planning experimental
research with the statement, “For future studies, pre-and post-tests on global literacy are
suggested to provide statistical evidence of global literacy improvement.” The study
by Engelbertink et al. (2021) used a non-experimental approach based on Interviews and online
survey data. The authors were randomized with the statement, “Further research using a
Randomized Controlled Trial among our students will yield more insight into the engagement
and motivation of the students using the course, its effectiveness, and the role of PT in this
respect,” proposed a study. Yick et al. (2019) said “A qualitative research design may provide a
detailed understanding about the response and preferences of students on the use of blended
learning and their perceived experiences of online learning in the first year of fashion education.
A pre-test and post-test design can also help examine differences in improvements in SRL and
sewing techniques before and after using online modules.” suggests replicating the study by
changing the method.

Discussion

The number of publications increased beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2020. The
number of publications peaked in the year 2020. A result of the bibliometric study covering
2012–2020 by Limaymanta et al. (2021) stated that most publications were made in 2019. This
result may be due to the fact that not all publications of 2020 were included, as the study covered
the period until November 2020. However, it has been determined that there has been an increase
in the number of articles in recent years. In this process, the effect of the pandemic may be.
During the pandemic process, many institutions have preferred online, blended learning methods
(Alsarayreh, 2020; Andrzej, 2020). Researchers have researched blended learning to examine
this compulsory condition (e.g., Subandowo et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021).

When the studies are evaluated, it is determined that 66 of the studies have a section labeled
“recommendations” “Future research” or “the limitations of the study” in which
recommendations and requests for more research may be made. Additionally, 43 publications
provide supplementary sections with recommendations for future study. 111 of the 251 articles
without a defined title for their proposals had textual recommendations for further research. Only
about half of the studies have recommendations for future research. However, this section, which
is seen both as a contribution of researchers to the field and as a part of the research process
(Sahu, 2013; Mackey and Gass, 2015), has not been taken into account.

The suggestions made by the researchers were gathered under the categories of “Research
Content” and “Replication and Method.” The maximum number of “Other Data Collection
Tools” codes was determined in the “Research Content” category. Researchers consider it
important to diversify data sources. The diversity of data in many areas provides convenience in
controlling the accuracy of data in research (Massey et al., 2016). Another code is “Arranging
other activities.” Blended learning can have rich content, including face-to-face and online
content and teaching approaches. According to Medina (2018), if it is to serve as a support
source—a means to an end—that expands the scope of traditional instructional and learning
actions while simultaneously fostering independent and lifelong learning skills and practical uses
of technology, effective blended learning must become more personalized, flexible, and on-
demand. This situation can offer diversity to researchers. “Focusing on other components” is the
last code in this category. Because there are different design approaches in blended learning
design, research can focus on various components because there are different design approaches
(Alammary et al., 2014; Manwaring et al., 2017; Thai et al., 2017).

For the transfer of work to other domains, there are two codes in the Replication category:
“Other disciplines” and “Implementing other courses.” While the first code’s researchers
concentrated on various disciplinary applications by evaluating a larger region, the others were
more interested in the immediate environment and proposed that it be used to analogous courses.
This finding appears to be the researcher’s decision in several ways. For example, Thai et al.
(2017) “To confirm the current findings and evaluate additional “blends” in higher education,
this study must be replicated with students from different courses and universities” have justified
the replication. In the Replication category, the “Larger sample”, “Diverse sample” and “Other
participants” branches are related to the sample size. Whether the number of people in the
sample is large or small depends on the research methodology (Chatterjee and Diaconis,
2018; Lakens, 2022). But researchers care about working with a larger sample. The “larger
sample” code was used the most in the codes related to sampling.

“Deep analyzes” and “Long term effect” were the codes we approved in both the replication and
method categories. Both codes suggest that additional investigation into the integrated learning
process is needed. Due to the variety and enrichment of the instruments employed in the blended
learning process (Engelbertink et al., 2021), as well as necessary processes such as the pandemic,
long-term research on blended learning will be required (Dziuban et al., 2018; Subandowo et al.,
2020).

“Comparative Studies” “Cross-Cultural Studies” “Longitudinal Studies” and “Changing

methodology” are all sections of the methodology category. In blended learning
implementations, there is a wide range of methodologies such as quantitative approach (Han and
Ellis, 2019), experimental method (Hijazi and AlNatour, 2020), and qualitative approach (Taylor
et al., 2018). With this understanding, the authors believe that their study may be applied to
various situations and methodologies.

Conclusion

The number of publications increased starting in 2017 and continuing through 2020. In the year
2020, most articles were published. When the studies are examined, it is discovered that 66 of
them have a section labeled “recommendations” “Future research” or “the limitations of the
study.” In addition, 43 of the papers have sections with research recommendations. There were
textual recommendations for future research in 111 of the 251 publications that did not have a
label for their ideas. Approximately half of the publications provide recommendations for future
research. The STEM field has the highest rate in selected studies. The researchers’
recommendations were gathered under the titles “Research Content” and “Replication and
Method” the researchers’ recommendations were gathered. “Other Data Collection Tools” is the
most coded category under “Research Content.” Diversification of data sources is important to
researchers. The Replication category has two codes for the transfer of work to other domains:
“Other disciplines” and “Implementing other courses.” The Replication category’s “Larger
sample” “Diverse sample” and “Other participants” branches all deal with sample size. The study
strategy determines whether the sample size is large or small. The “larger sample” code was the
most common among the sampling-related codes. In both the replication and procedure
categories, we accepted the codes “Deep analyzes” and “Long term effect” The category
“Comparative Studies” includes subsections such as “Cross-Cultural Studies, “ “Longitudinal
Studies, “ “Changing methodology” and “Methodology.”

Only publications from journals indexed in the Scopus database were included in the study,
which is one of the study’s limitations. In the course of the investigation of the recommendations
made in the research, content analysis was performed on the statements made by the authors.
There has been no investigation into whether or not the intended published research scope is
appropriate. The “Recommendations for future research” section might be examined for its level
of quality by researchers in the future. It is possible to determine whether the codes produced by
investigations of the same kind in several fields are field-independent. In addition, our
investigation was limited to papers based on previous research. The breadth of data sources may
be enlarged without more limits being added, as the focus of future research will be on
theoretical investigations. In addition, it will be of use to researchers in that it will remind them
of the significance of “recommendations for future research”.

Author Contributions

RP, NO, and SD contributed to conception and design of the study. SD and SBD searching
database and analysis. RP and NK wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed
to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or
financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed, or endorsed by the publisher.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.957199/full

BLENDED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

Dr.Subrahmanian Muthuraman1 Dr.Rengarajan Veerasamy2 & Tajnuva Chowdhury Nabila3 1
Assistant Professor, 2 Lecturer, 3 Under Graduate Student Faculty of Business Studies, Arab
Open University, Oman Branch [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Advancements in technology has brought both opportunities and challenges to education and
training. With technological innovations over the year’s reliance on the traditional face-to-face
learning is being shifted on to other various means to support knowledge delivery and fostering
an innovative learning environment. Instructional approaches such as Blended learning, which
can combine face-to-face instruction with computer mediated instruction, has substituted a large
portion of the traditional face-to-face instructional time. This paper aims to examine, and review
of previous studies carried out based on the perceptions of students in blended learning
environments and its effectiveness in enhancing the learning process. Desk Research technique
was conducted for this study which basically involving collecting data from the existing online
library. The main purpose of using desk research is to generate new insights from the previous
studies. Reanalyzing the previous literature may lead to unexpected new discoveries. Several
case studies have been explored here which suggests blended learning has had positive impacts
on improving student’s exam marks, attendance rate among others but, there is a need to consider
that being fully dependent on it may result in reverse effects. As in contrast to this, studies also
reveal that not everyone might be able to cope with the blended learning and might prefer a more
traditional learning environment. And thus, it is necessary for higher educational institutions to
pay obvious attention to the students’ individual learning needs and their views on blended
learning. Higher Educational Institution may consider offering students a choice of whether to
enrol in blended or fully face-toface course sections where suitable. Educators should carefully
design courses in ways with multiple means of expression and engagement, representation, to
scaffold and support students in the creation of their own individualised blend. High degree of
motivation, utility and satisfaction perceived from blended learning, which results in students to
have a positive attitude towards learning. Keywords: Blended learning, learning styles, E-
learning, Learning Management System, Higher Education
1. INTRODUCTION
The widespread use of the Internet has resulted in higher education institutions around the world
going through rapid changes as they adapt to the new realities of the knowledge society
(Macfadyen and Dawson, 2010) and hence, it is necessary for them to comply with the growing
expectations to help students strive effectively in the technology-based world. Higher education
institutions (HEIs) Advancements in technology has brought both opportunities and challenges to
education and training, particularly through online instruction and created new terminologies
such as online learning, e-learning, or web-based learning specifically (Akkoyunlu & Soylu,
2008; Güzer & Caner, 2014). Instructional approaches such as Blended learning, which can
combine face-to-face instruction with computer mediated instruction, has substituted a large
portion of the traditional face-to-face instructional time (Owston, York & Murtha, 2013). Hence,
computer-mediated instruction is often credited to encourage students’ creative, analytical and
critical thinking skills, creating social interaction and good relationships between writer and
reader and supporting the learning community (Gyamfi & Gyaase, 2015). Blended learning
provides learners with the opportunity to interact at anytime and anywhere because of the perks
that computer-mediated educational tools have to offer, and this contributes to greater quality and
quantity of socially supported, constructive, learning experience. Much research has been
undertaken in relation to blended learning, their dimensions and variables and their impact, with
the most important debates to whether students can truly learn better in a blended learning
environment compared to traditional face-to-face classroom environment (Güzer & Caner,
2014).
2. LITERATURE – A CRITICAL REVIEW
2.1 Blended learning: what and why? Blended learning is a familiar term now and practice in the
higher education and there has been many definitions put forward in the literature. Over the
years, factors such as twenty first century skills, information explosion and demands of
workplaces has strengthened and encouraged moves to adopt technologies into classrooms and
learning settings. The rapid growth in the use of learning technologies has led to a growing need
to explore efficient program delivery methodologies and provided teachers and students with
many more opportunities to mix of teaching and learning styles for a given task (Uğur,
Akkoyunlu & Kurbanoğlu, 2009).
https://tojqih.net/journals/tojdel/articles/v08i01/v08i01-03.pdf