A recent increase in blended course options has changed the landscape of higher education, necessitating revisions of prior categorization of blended online and in-person course models. Building on the Mixed Instructional eXperience (MIX) taxonomy using current literature and course models, we developed three key parameters for defining course modality. Resulting parameters included: minimum technology-mediated delivery, with subcategories of synchronous and asynchronous delivery; geographical flexibility, a percentage of face-to-face course sessions that allow synchronous online attendance; and asynchronous completion option, a binary measure indicating whether full asynchronous participation in the course is allowed. Two coders applied these parameters to 33 syllabi with resulting intraclass correlations of 0.78 and 0.83 for minimum technology-mediated delivery (asynchronous and synchronous, respectively); 0.79 for geographical flexibility, and a Cohen's Kappa of 1 for asynchronous completion options. Results indicate that our parameters can be applied consistently, and adequately describe the modality options that distinguish various blended courses.
BekeleT. A.AmponsahS.KarkoutiI. M. (2023). African philosophy for successful integration of technology in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(6), 1520–1538. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13364
3.
BekeleT. A.KarkoutiI. M.AmponsahS. (2022). Core conceptual features of successful blended learning in higher education: Policy implications. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30(156). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.7444
4.
BenitoÁYeniseyK. D.KhannaK.MasisM.MongeR.TugtanM.ArayaL. V.VigR. (2021). Changes that should remain in higher education post COVID-19: A mixed-methods analysis of the experiences at three universities. Higher Learning Research Communications, 11, 51–75. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v11i0.1195
5.
BenoitD. F.TsangW. K.CoussementK.RaesA. (2024). High-stake student drop-out prediction using hidden Markov models in fully asynchronous subscription-based MOOCs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 198(2024), 123009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123009
6.
BishopJ.VerlegerM. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. 2013 ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings, 23.1200.1-23.1200.18. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–22585
7.
BowerM.DalgarnoB.KennedyG. E.LeeM. J. W.KenneyJ. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86(2015), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006
8.
BozkurtA. (2022). A retro perspective on blended/hybrid learning: Systematic review, mapping and visualization of the scholarly landscape. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.751
9.
ChenX.ZouD.ChengG.XieH. (2020). Detecting latent topics and trends in educational technologies over four decades using structural topic modeling: A retrospective of all volumes of Computers & Education. Computers & Education, 151(July 2020), 103855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103855
10.
de WitH.AltbachP. G. (2023). International higher education for the future: Major crises and post-pandemic challenges. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 55(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2023.2151799
11.
EbnerC.GegenfurtnerA. (2019). Learning and satisfaction in webinar, Online, and face-to-face instruction: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Education, 4, 92. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00092
12.
FleenerM. J. (2021). A social inquiry analysis of post-pandemic higher education: A futures perspective. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v21i10.4622
13.
GegenfurtnerA.SchwabN.EbnerC. (2018). “There’s no need to drive from A to B”: Exploring the lived experience of students and lecturers with digital learning in higher education. Bavarian Journal of Applied Sciences, 4(2018), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.25929/bjas.v4i1.50
14.
GrahamC. R.HalversonL. R. (2022). Blended learning research and practice. In Handbook of open, distance and digital education: Vol. Bower (pp. 1–20). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0351-9_68-1
15.
GreenhowC.GrahamC. R.KoehlerM. J. (2022). Foundations of online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2090364
16.
GuppyN.VerpoortenD.BoudD.LinL.TaiJ.BartolicS. (2022). The post-COVID-19 future of digital learning in higher education: Views from educators, students, and other professionals in six countries. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 1750–1765. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13212
JoynerD. A.IsbellC. (2021). The distributed classroom. The MIT Press.
19.
KooT. K.LiM. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
20.
MargulieuxL. E.McCrackenW. M.CatramboneR. (2016). A taxonomy to define courses that mix face-to-face and online learning. Educational Research Review, 19(2016), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.001
MeadC.SupriyaK.ZhengY.AnbarA. D.CollinsJ. P.LePoreP.BrownellS. E. (2020). Online biology degree program broadens access for women, first-generation to college, and low-income students, but grade disparities remain. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0243916. https://doi.org/0.1371/journal.pone.0243916
23.
NussliN.OhK. (2024). Creating a “space in-between”: Learning on the physical–hybrid–virtual continuum. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 52(4), 471–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395241252139
24.
ParkY.DooM. Y. (2024). Role of AI in blended learning: A systematic literature review. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(1), 164–196. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i1.7566
25.
PorterW. W.GrahamC. R.SpringK. A.WelchK. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75(2014), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011
26.
PrihatmokoY.NindigrahaN.PraherdhionoH.FirdausK. H. C.ArifiansyahM. D. (2022). The Effect of hybrid learning strategy and achievement motivation on student learning outcomes. 2022 8th international conference on education and technology (ICET) (pp. 202–206). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICET56879.2022.9990676
27.
RaesA.DetienneL.WindeyI.DepaepeF. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23(3), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z
28.
RofA.BikfalviA.MarquesP. (2022). Pandemic-accelerated digital transformation of a born digital higher education institution: Towards a customized multimode learning strategy. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 124–141.
29.
SinghJ.SteeleK.SinghL. (2021). Combining the best of online and face-to-face learning: Hybrid and blended learning approach for COVID-19, post vaccine, & post-pandemic world. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(2), 140–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211047865
YangG.KuangQ.JiangR.JiangR. (2024). The effects of blended teaching approach on university students’ English learning outcomes: A three-level meta-analytic review. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13041-y
