Blended learning (BL), defined as a combination of traditional and online instruction (Bonk & Graham, 2005), has gained popularity among higher education institutions with the advent of the Internet and the development of educational technologies. Scholars predict that BL, if correctly designed, might be the new normal of teaching (Dziuban et al., 2018; Norberg, Dziuban, & Moskal, 2011), or the “new traditional model” (Ross & Gage, 2006, p. 167) of teaching students. The potential of BL has been recognized not only by scholars but also by the state program “Informational Kazakhstan-2020,” which highlights that it is the future of Kazakhstani higher education (Ministry of Transport and Communication (MTC), 2010). This program stated that ICT “use in the educational process will help to bring the country’s education to a new level” (MTC, 2010, p. 18).

Several universities in Kazakhstan are offering blended courses starting from 2015 (Andreeva et al., 2018; Ibrayeva et al., 2018; Namyssova et al., 2019; Rybinski & Sootla, 2016; Tyler & Abdrakhmanova, 2016; Yudintseva, 2016). Without an understanding of how blended courses might be effective for students’ learning and what factors influence it, it will be difficult to successfully implement BL. By exploring students’ educational experiences, it will be possible to understand the effectiveness of BL as a teaching approach and to inform policy and practices in Kazakhstani universities. 

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore undergraduate students’ learning experiences in BLEs at national and private universities in Kazakhstan and to identify the key factors that influence learning experiences and how these factors vary between demographic groups. By exploring the learning experiences of students, it will be possible to understand how BL supports and contributes to the learning of students and thus strengthen the effectiveness of BL as a teaching approach. Particular focus will be on the quality of interactions of students with instructors, peers, content, and technology in BLEs and how BL contributes to their learning. 

In accordance with the purpose of this study, the following research questions will help to investigate students’ perspectives when studying in BLEs about their learning experiences. The overarching research question is:

What are undergraduate students’ learning experiences in BLEs at the national, and private universities of Kazakhstan? 

The sub-questions are: 

1. How do undergraduate students describe their learning experiences in BLEs?Which factors, as perceived by the students, influence their learning experiences in BLEs?
2. Do students see blended courses as encouraging or impeding their interactions with teachers, with other students, with content, and with technology?
3. What are the students’ suggestions on how the learning experiences of students in BLEs can be improved?

Through the lens of connectivism learning theory (Siemens, 2005), so-called new learning theory for the digital age (Siemens, 2005) or “new paradigm of learning” (Cabrero & Román, 2018, p. 29), I will describe the learning processes in BLEs. Little research has been conducted on how technology affects the learning process and connectivism could be used as a framework to understand how students learn in this learning environment. 

The conceptual framework underpinning my study has been inspired by the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000). Studies have shown that the CoI model is the most popular and credible framework for assessing students’ experiences in BL courses (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Lam, 2015; Shea et al., 2010). In the original framework (Garrison et al., 2000), there are three elements that are prerequisites of a worthwhile learning experience: teaching, cognitive, and social presences. Additionally, new elements (learner and technological presences) to the original CoI model (Garrison et al., 2010) will be added.

Methodologically, my stance is that neither quantitative nor qualitative methods separately can give a comprehensive picture and better understanding of such a complex phenomenon as a learning experience. For this reason, this study is characterized as an explanatory sequential mixed methods (Creswell, 2013), multiple-site case study (Yin, 2018) which is suited better to answer my research questions. The mixed methods research is “research in which the investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of inquiry” (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007, p. 4). When brought together, qualitative and quantitative methods complement each other and overlap each other’s shortcomings. This study is considered an explanatory sequential mixed method case study (Creswell, 2013), meaning that first, I will collect quantitative data using questionnaires and then qualitative data using interviews, documents, and artifacts to amalgamate the power of numbers with power of stories (Pluye & Hong, 2014). It means that qualitative data will elucidate the meaning of quantitative data (Hesse-Biber, 2010) by constructing a narrative based on statistical data. The questionnaire results will give me a snapshot of students’ learning experiences in BLEs and will support preparation of interview questions that will help to explain the results from the questionnaire and explore students’ experiences in more depth (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Ivankova, Creswell & Stick, 2006). Qualitative data collection will be employed as it aims to explore the students’ voices about BL through interviewing them (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011), not from standardized items developed by the researcher. Besides, qualitative data allows taking into account all the factors that affect the students’ experiences, not a limited number of variables compared to quantitative research (Berg & Lune, 2012). For example, contextual information or cultural aspects can be explored deeper using qualitative instruments. This case study is particularistic (Merriam, 2009), because it focuses “on a particular situation, event, program, or phenomenon” (p. 43), that is the blended learning courses in two universities. This research is a collective, multiple-site case study designed to explore “one issue or concern” in “multiple” cases to illustrate the issue in a more detailed manner (Creswell, 2013, p. 99). The rationale for the multi-case study is because I want to examine how the phenomenon (blended learning) is seen and experienced in different contexts (national and private universities).

This study is the first attempt to conduct a comprehensive mixed-method study on blended learning in Kazakhstan, thus it might have implications to the theory and practice of BL. As BL is a relatively young educational phenomenon with limited theoretical underpinning (Graham et al., 2014), this study will contribute to the body of knowledge, both locally and internationally. Additionally, new elements (learner and technological presences) to the original CoI model (Garrison et al., 2010) could be added if the study will prove their appropriateness. It is expected that the findings will be helpful to the faculty to enhance the quality of educational services. While higher education institutions in Kazakhstan and post-Soviet countries have been increasingly using a blended learning approach, there is a shortage of empirical research on this topic, especially in terms of students’ views of blended courses. Since there is no holistic research about students’ experiences in BL in Kazakhstan, this paper might contribute to the growing area of blended learning research. Potentially, the findings of this study might contribute to the limited literature of Central Asian students’ experiences in blended learning classrooms. Finally, the findings of this study will have practical relevance for universities that are planning to integrate blended learning into their programs. This research will shed light on the problems of the integration of blended courses and explore factors that are affecting the learning experience of students. It is expected that investigating the experiences of learners in BLE will be used by policymakers and universities in Kazakhstan to make informed decisions about the implementation of blended courses. The findings of this research will help university administrators and designers to unlock the potential of blended learning and to enhance the learning experiences of students by satisfying their needs.

Bonk, C.J., & Graham, C. R. (2005). The Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer Publishing. Cabrero, R. S., & Román, O. C. (2018). Psychopedagogical Predecessors of Connectivism as a New Paradigm of Learning. International Journal of Educational Excellence, 4(2), 29-45. http://doi.org/10.18562/IJEE.037 Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16. http://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5 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. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the Community of Inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003 Halverson, L. R., Spring, K. J., Huyett, S., Henrie, C. R., & Graham, C. R. (2017). Blended learning research in higher education and k-12 settings. In J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–30). Springer International Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_31-1 Lam, J. Y. C. (2015). Examining student experience of blended learning from the perspective of the Community of Inquiry framework. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 10(2), 81–99. http://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-10-02-2015-B007 Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Kazakhstan (MTC). (2010). The State Program “Informational Kazakhstan - 2020.” Astana. Retrieved from http://miid.gov.kz/en/pages/state-program-informational-kazakhstan-2020?theme_version=mirm Norberg, A., Dziuban, C., Moskal, P. (2011). A time based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19(3), 207-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748121111163913 Rybinski, K. I., & Sootla, E. (2016). A blended learning experiment in Kazakhstan. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2794306 Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017 Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10. Retrieved from http://er.dut.ac.za/bitstream/handle/123456789/69/Siemens_2005_Connectivism_A_learning_theory_for_the_digital_age.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Tyler, B., & Abdrakhmanova, M. (2016, October). Flipping the CS1 and CS2 classrooms in Central Asia. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1-5). IEEE.