In Activating Blended Education (ABE), online and in person education are combined (Bowyer & Chambers, 2017) and students have to actively learn through exercises and meetings that are activating in nature, such as tutorials and discussions. ABE has increasingly been applied in higher education since the early 2000s in Europe and the United States (Güzer & Caner, 2014) and increasingly in the rest of the world (Anthony et al, 2020). After the Covid-19 pandemic, it has even been described as a new normal (Cobo-Rendón et al., 2022;  Singh et al., 2021).  

Multiple meta-analyses have found that ABE leads to better academic results than education that takes place entirely on campus or online (Bernard et al., 2014; Castro, 2019; Vho et al., 2017). Online contents gives students greater flexibility and the opportunity to learn at their own pace (Boelens et al,. 2018) and activating educational methods force students to cognitively engage with teaching materials long before a final exam. ABE can implemented in different ways. An instructor could for example choose for a flipped classroom setting in which instruction takes place via prerecorded lectures and meetings on location are used for clarification and discussion. It is also possible to make a course blended by adding online modules to a courses.

ABE has been extensively studied but most research has focused on detailed analysis of single courses and curricula (Anthony et al., 2022) often given by proponents of ABE. Research into institutional adoption of ABE is rare and often relies on interviews with higher management rather than a measurement of the actual instruction offered in higher education (Graham et al., 2022) As the adoption of ABE becomes more widespread, it becomes necessary to study how ABE is adopted institutionally and measure whether and how ABE is implemented through analysis of the actual education offered to the students.

The Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) adopted ABE as one of the design principles for its education in 2021. It is yet unclear whether the university truly achieved a greater level of blended and activating education and to ascertain whether this is the case, a mixed method research project has been started. For this study, a stratified sample was taken of Bachelor courses for which the content was analysed through the schedule and online learning environment. Interviews were conducted with course coordinators on the rationale for their course design. 

We aim to answer the following research questions. 1) how can we efficiently and validly ascertain whether a course is blended and activating? 2) How is ABE designed? 3) Is there a shift towards more ABE in the period 2019-2024? 

With a newly developed measuring instrument, over 150 courses were successfully analysed. The analysed courses were to a great degree activating but to a far smaller degree blended. Apart from a small minority of 10% of the sample, all courses had numerous assignments and meetings that are activating in nature. The courses that were blended were so because of a greater focus on online videos and modules rather than online meetings. In 2019-2020, all instruction took place on campus and during the Covid-19 pandemic all instruction moved online. After the pandemic, in 2022-2023, only a small number of courses had retained online activities. Online meetings were generally limited to one per course and do no constitute a significant part of the instruction. There was also an increase in online videos, quizzes and exercises. In interviews, teachers were generally positive about ABE but at the same time strongly preferred to have in person meetings.

A measuring instrument was developed for analysis of the online learning environments of courses. Due to the great variety in how the online learning environment is used by different instructors, this analysis could not be automated and could only be done in person. The instrument was used to determine for each meeting whether it takes place online or not and whether it is activating in nature. Lectures and film showings were counted as not activating in nature. Most other meetings such as tutorials, lab practicals, debates and presentation sessions were counted as activating in nature. Prerecorded lectures were counted separately from lectures that were held online live at a specific point in time. In addition, the number of assignments and type of assignments (exercises, reports, presentations etc) were counted. We also included a measurement of all types of digital tools that were used, such as online quizzes, the use of an online forum and the use of e-books and e-modules. We took a stratified sample for each bachelor education. For each bachelor program (45 in total), a course was picked randomly for each of the three years that the program lasted. All course coordinators were approached and gave permission for analysis of the Measurements took place for 2019-2020, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 and were done by two raters. In the cases in which the two raters disagreed in their rating of a course, a researcher also rated the course and came to a final rating. The course coordinators of the sampled courses were approached for a semi-structured interview and 29 of them agreed and were interviewed. In these interviews, the coordinators were asked about their view of education, in particular regarding activating and online education, and the rationale behind the design of their course. Special attention was paid to how the course has changed over the years and whether any changes will be made to the course in coming years. Interviews were conducted once the quantitative analysis of the course had been concluded. During the interview, the coordinators were shown the results of this analyses and were asked to comment on it. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and coded inductively.

Currently, over two thirds of sampled courses have been analysed and almost all interviews have been conducted and transcribed and are in the process of being coded. We intend to complete the analysis in the coming months. From the analysis done so far, it can be concluded that the sampled courses are to a great degree activating but to a far smaller degree blended. The courses that were blended were so due to inclusion of online material rather than online meetings. Almost all courses made use of activating meetings and included multiple assignments. A minority of 10% of the courses could be classified as passive in nature. In 2019-2020, all instruction took place on campus (and during the Covid-19 pandemic, all instruction was online). In 2022-2023, a small shift towards online education had taken place. Around 20% of courses had online meetings, though often only one or two. There was a modest increase in use of videoclips and online modules. When shown the analysis, coordinators agreed with the findings. In interviews, course coordinators were generally positive towards online education and saw the value of online modules and instructional videoclips. However, they preferred in person meetings for personal interaction and group formation. Coordinators often erroneously thought it was university policy to hold meetings on campus. An important finding is that the developed instrument can be used to make valid and reliable statements about the degree to which a course is activating and blended. It can also create a valid evaluation of the institutional state of ABE. It turns out that the view that university-level education would primarily consist of lectures is outdated. Finally, it can be concluded that the shift towards online education during the pandemic was temporary due to a focus on in person instruction and student wellbeing.

Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A., Abdullah, A., & Ming, G. L. (2020). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: A theoretical and systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-48. 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 the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122. Boelens, R., Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2018). The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors’ views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning. Computers & Education, 120, 197-212. Bowyer, J., & Chambers, L. (2017). Evaluating blended learning: Bringing the elements together. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication, 23(1), 17-26. Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2523-2546. Cobo-Rendón, R., Bruna Jofre, C., Lobos, K., Cisternas San Martin, N., & Guzman, E. (2022, July). Return to university classrooms with Blended Learning: a possible post-pandemic COVID-19 scenario. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7). Frontiers Media SA. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The internet and higher education, 18, 4-14. Güzer, B., & Caner, H. (2014). The past, present and future of blended learning: an in depth analysis of literature. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 116, 4596-4603. Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (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. Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17-28. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2021) Onderwijsvisie Vrije Universiteit. Accessed on the 16th of January 2024, https://vu.nl/nl/medewerker/onderwijsbeleid/onderwijsvisie