Publication years, journals and conference proceedings, productive authors, and institutions on BLHE. Figure 1 indicated the Annual publications on BLHE research. In the web of Science core collection, this research field experienced a slow start from 2001 to 2008, with fewer than 20 publications per year. A noticeable increase began in 2009, with 22 publications, marking the beginning of more significant interest in the topic. Rapid growth was observed from 2013 onwards, with publications more than doubling from 67 in 2012 to 138 in 2015. The field reached its peak in terms of publications in 2018 and 2019, with 196 and 194 papers respectively. Interestingly, there was a slight dip in 2020 to 182 papers, possibly due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the field quickly rebounded in 2021 with 194 publications, suggesting a renewed interest in blended learning strategies as institutions adapted to new educational paradigms. The most recent years has shown a gradual decline in the number of publications, with 162 in 2022, 140 in 2023, and 101 in the partial year of 2024. This trend could indicate a maturation of the field or a shift in research focus within higher education.
Figure 1. Annual publications on BLHE. The diagram reveals the publication number for each year and the general trend.
Examining 2,125 articles and reviews revealed a diverse landscape of publication venues, encompassing both traditional journals and conference proceedings. Notably, conference proceedings dominated the upper echelons of this bibliometric analysis. At the forefront, Edulearn Proceedings stood out with an impressive 177 papers, closely followed by Inted Proceedings and Iceri Proceedings, contributing 138 and 87 publications respectively. Occupying the fourth position, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, a book series frequently utilized for conference proceedings, accounted for 63 publications. Education and Information Technologies emerged as the first traditional journal on the list, securing the fifth rank with 60 papers. Subsequently, another conference proceeding, Proceedings of the European Conference on E-Learning, claimed the sixth spot with 49 publications. Further down the list, two more journals make their appearance: Higher Education Research Development and Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, contributing 40 and 36 papers respectively. Rounding out the top ten were Elearning and Software for Education, a hybrid publication featuring both journal articles and conference proceedings, and the journal Sustainability, both tied at 34 publications each.
Table 1
Top 10 most fruitful journals and conference proceedings for BLHE research.
| Ranking | Journals | The number of published papers |
| 1 | Edulearn Proceedings | 177 |
| 2 | Inted Proceedings | 138 |
| 3 | Iceri Proceedings | 87 |
| 4 | Lecture Notes in Computer Science | 63 |
| 5 | Education And Information Technologies | 60 |
| 6 | Proceedings On the European Conference of E Learning | 49 |
| 7 | Higher Education Research Development | 40 |
| 8 | Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences | 36 |
| 9 | Elearning And Software for Education | 34 |
| 10 | Sustainability | 34 |
Table 2 presented the top 10 most productive authors for BLHE research. The table ranked authors based on their number of published papers in this field. Jesús Sergio Artal-Sevil led the list with 19 publications, followed by Chang Zhu with 14 publications. Denise Jackson and Enrique Romero shared the third position, each with 10 publications. The remaining authors in the top 10 had between 7 and 9 publications each, with Yang Harrison Hao rounding out the list at 10th place with 7 published papers.
Table 2
Top 10 most productive authors for BLHE research
| Ranking | Authors | The number of published papers |
| 1 | Artal-Sevil, Jesús Sergio | 19 |
| 2 | Zhu, Chang | 14 |
| 3 | Jackson, Denise | 10 |
| 4 | Romero, Enrique | 10 |
| 5 | Han, Feifei | 9 |
| 6 | Graham, Charles R. | 9 |
| 7 | Simonova, Ivana | 9 |
| 8 | Manuel Artacho, J. | 9 |
| 9 | Castro, Manuel | 8 |
| 10 | Yang, Harrison Hao | 7 |
Turning to institutional productivity (Table 3), we noticed a landscape dominated by university systems rather than individual institutions. Griffith University topped the list with 29 published papers. Deakin University, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, and University of Zaragoza were tied for second place, each with 23 publications. The list included universities from various countries, including Australia, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and China. Interestingly, the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine appeared in the 9th position with 16 publications, indicating significant governmental involvement in this research area. The number of published papers for these institutions ranged from 29 to 16, with the University of Granada completing the top 10 with 16 publications.
Table 3
Top 10 most productive institutions for BLHE research
| Ranking | Institutions | The number of published papers |
| 1 | Griffith University | 29 |
| 2 | Deakin University | 23 |
| 3 | Instituto Politécnico do Porto | 23 |
| 4 | University of Zaragoza | 23 |
| 5 | Vrije Universiteit Brusse | 18 |
| 6 | Central China Normal University | 17 |
| 7 | Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) | 17 |
| 8 | Hong Kong Polytechnic University | 16 |
| 9 | Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine | 16 |
| 10 | University of Granada | 16 |
Document co-citation analysis. The document co-citation analysis of 2125 publications on BLHE, spanning from 2001 to 2024, revealed a comprehensive picture of the field's intellectual structure. Using CiteSpace, we generated a visualization of the co-citation network, which comprised 674 nodes representing cited publications and 2801 links indicating co-citation relationships, as shown in Fig. 2. The network was constructed by selecting the top 50 most-cited papers per 3-year time slice, allowing for a more granular view of the field's evolution over time. The resulting visualization presented a dense and intricate network structure with node sizes reflecting citation frequency and a color spectrum from cool to warm tones representing the temporal progression of publications. The modularity Q score of 0.8165 indicated a well-structured network with clearly defined communities, while the mean silhouette value of 0.3607 suggested reasonable clarity in the cluster divisions.
Figure 2 Crucial documents in BLHE study.
The diagram of document co-citations revealed the top 5 most cited articles among the 2125 publications collected from the WoS.
Table 4
The top 10 most cited publications in BLHE research.
| Ranking | Citation count | Author(year) | Publication name | Journal or press |
| 1 | 241 | Garrison and Kanuka (2004) | Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education | The Internet and Higher Education |
| 2 | 116 | Graham (2006) | The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs | San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing |
| 3 | 76 | Garrison and Vaughan (2007) | Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. | San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. |
| 4 | 75 | Lopez-Perez et al. (2011) | Blended Learning in Higher Education: Students' Perceptions and Their Relation to Outcomes | Computers & Education |
| 5 | 75 | Graham et al. (2013) | A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education | Internation and higher education |
The most cited work, Garrison and Kanuka's (2004) ‘Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education’ (241 citations), stood as a cornerstone in the field. Its high citation count reflected its seminal role in introducing the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to blended learning contexts. This framework, emphasizing the interplay of cognitive, social, and teaching presence, has profoundly shaped subsequent research and practice. The work's enduring influence suggested that it successfully captured a fundamental conceptual need in the emerging field of blended learning. Graham's (2006) ‘The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs’ (116 citations) marked a significant shift in the field's focus. While building on the theoretical foundations laid by Garrison and Kanuka (2004), Graham's work (2006) expanded the scope to include diverse global perspectives and implementation strategies. The substantial citation count, despite being published later, indicated a growing recognition of the importance of contextual factors in blended learning design. This work bridged the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical implementation, a theme that became increasingly prominent in later works. The next three works, all with similar citation counts (75–76), represented a diversification of research approaches in the field. Garrison and Vaughan's (2007) ‘Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines’ (76 citations) further developed the CoI framework, providing more detailed guidance for practitioners. Its similar citation count to Graham's work suggested that the field valued both theoretical refinement and practical application equally. López-Pérez et al.'s (2011) ‘Blended Learning in Higher Education: Students' Perceptions and Their Relation to Outcomes’ (75 citations) marked a crucial turn towards empirical validation. This study's quantitative approach, correlating student perceptions with learning outcomes, filled a critical gap in the literature. Its rapid accumulation of citations, despite being published later, indicated a strong demand for evidence-based research in the field. Graham et al.'s (2013) ‘A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education’ (75 citations) represented another significant shift, focusing on the institutional level of blended learning adoption. Its quick rise to prominence suggested a growing recognition of the need for systemic approaches to blended learning implementation.
Methodologically, these works demonstrated a clear evolution in research approaches. Garrison and Kanuka (2004) as well as Graham (2006) primarily employed theoretical and conceptual analyses, laying the groundwork for the field. Garrison and Vaughan (2007) introduced more practical, design-based research approaches, bridging theory and practice. López-Pérez et al. (2011) marked a shift towards empirical, quantitative methods, using statistical analyses to correlate student perceptions with learning outcomes. This methodological diversity reflected the field's maturation and the growing recognition of the need for multiple research approaches to fully understand the complexities of blended learning. Theoretically, while the CoI framework dominates, particularly in the earlier works, there's a notable trend towards theoretical pluralism. None of these highly cited works adhered exclusively to a single learning theory. Instead, they drew from various constructivist and social learning principles, reflecting the inherently hybrid nature of blended learning. This theoretical eclecticism suggested that the field recognized the need for flexible, adaptable frameworks to accommodate the diverse contexts in which blended learning was implemented. Thematically, all five works emphasized the transformative potential of blended learning in higher education, but approached this potential from different angles. Garrison and Kanuka (2004) and Garrison and Vaughan (2007) focused on pedagogical transformation through the CoI framework. Graham (2006) emphasized the importance of contextual adaptation and cultural sensitivity in blended learning design. López-Pérez et al. (2011) highlighted the potential for improved student outcomes, while Graham et al. (2013) addressed the broader institutional transformations necessary for successful blended learning adoption. The evolution of these themes over time reflected the field's growing sophistication. Early works focused on defining blended learning and establishing theoretical frameworks. Later works moved towards providing practical implementation guidelines, empirical evidence of effectiveness, and strategies for institutional adoption. This progression mirrored the typical development of a maturing field of study, moving from conceptual foundations to practical applications and empirical validation. Interestingly, the balanced citation counts across the later works suggested that the field valued theoretical development, practical implementation, and empirical research equally. This balance indicated a holistic approach to understanding blended learning, recognizing that effective implementation required a combination of strong theoretical grounding, practical know-how, and evidence-based practice. The geographic diversity of the authors and their institutional affiliations (spanning North America and Europe) suggested that blended learning research was an international endeavor. However, the dominance of English-language publications from Western institutions also pointed to potential gaps in the literature, particularly regarding blended learning implementation in other cultural contexts.
Co-occurring terms analysis. Keyword co-occurrence analysis is a powerful tool for identifying research areas and dominant topics within a field (Chen et al., 2016). This method leverages the principle that keywords in academic papers serve as concise summaries of the work's subject matter. When two or more keywords frequently appear together across multiple publications, it suggests a strong thematic relationship between these terms. This metric quantifies the strength of relationships between terms, allowing researchers to predict the likelihood of term co-occurrences even in related topics. Keywords with high Betweenness Centrality values are often particularly significant within the field of study. In our analysis of blended learning literature, we examined keywords that co-occurred in at least two separate publications. We employed a three-year slice length and set the Look Back Years (LBY) parameter to all years to ensure a comprehensive view of the field's evolution. The network of related keywords is shown in Fig. 3. This approach allowed for the identification of research hotspots, as terms with high frequency often indicated areas of intense scholarly interest. The results of our analysis revealed that the top five most frequently occurring terms were blended learning, higher education, students, (online) learning, and flipped classroom. These keywords provided insight into the central themes and preoccupations of blended learning research during the studied period. Additionally, all terms that appeared more than 30 times in the analyzed literature were listed in Table 5, providing a more comprehensive view of the field's vocabulary and research foci.
Figure 3 Keyword co-occurrence network. The keyword co-occurrence network diagram revealed the most popular keywords in BLHE research.
Table 5
co-occurring terms with high frequency
| count | central | keyword | count | central | keyword | count | central | keyword |
| 955 | 0.26 | blended learning | 74 | 0.02 | design | 43 | 0.02 | outcome |
| 827 | 0.13 | higher education | 74 | 0.04 | satisfaction | 43 | 0.03 | teachers |
| 170 | 0.03 | students | 74 | 0.04 | work-integrated learning | 41 | 0.00 | learning analytics |
| 157 | 0.04 | online | 65 | 0.04 | hybrid learning | 40 | 0.04 | distance education |
| 134 | 0.01 | online learning | 57 | 0.03 | motivation | 37 | 0.02 | flipped learning |
| 113 | 0.02 | flipped classroom | 57 | 0.04 | achievement | 37 | 0.02 | distance learning |
| 107 | 0.03 | perceptions | 55 | 0.02 | engagement | 35 | 0.03 | acceptance |
| 105 | 0.05 | performance | 55 | 0.02 | university | 34 | 0.01 | adoption |
| 92 | 0.04 | technology | 46 | 0.01 | student engagement | 34 | 0.03 | instruction |
| 89 | 0.01 | education | 46 | 0.01 | classroom | 33 | 0.00 | challenges |
| 79 | 0.01 | impact | 46 | 0.04 | experiences | 32 | 0.01 | knowledge |
| 78 | 0.03 | model | 45 | 0.06 | collaborative learning | 31 | 0.03 | framework |
Cluster interpretations. We utilized CiteSpace to conduct a cluster analysis based on keyword co-occurrences in the field of BLHE. The analysis, using a 3-year time slice, yielded a total of 674 nodes in the co-citation network, and 11 distinct clusters, providing a comprehensive overview of the research landscape in this field. Figure 4 illustrated these clusters, with warmer colors indicating more recent research topics and cooler colors representing older research themes. Table 6 presented the important clusters of keywords in BLHE research, including cluster size, silhouette value, and key terms associated with each cluster. The 11 clusters were named blended learning, collaborative learning, continuance intention, self-regulated learning, curriculum design, work-integrated learning, teaching/ learning strategies, hybrid learning, game-based learning, learning communities, community of inquiry.
The largest cluster (#0) is labeled ‘blended learning,’ representing the core concept of the field. This cluster's high silhouette value (0.903) indicates its coherence and distinctiveness. Key terms within this cluster, such as ‘higher education,’ ‘flipped classroom,’ ‘online learning,’ and ‘student engagement,’ suggest a focus on innovative pedagogical approaches within tertiary education settings. Blended learning, as the central concept, has been extensively studied in higher education contexts (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Its transformative potential lies in its ability to integrate the strengths of face-to-face and online learning modalities. The inclusion of ‘flipped classroom’ in this cluster is particularly noteworthy, as it represents a specific implementation of blended learning that has gained significant attention in recent (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). The flipped classroom model inverts traditional teaching methods, delivering instructional content outside of the classroom and moving activities traditionally considered ‘homework’ into the classroom. This approach aligns well with the principles of blended learning, leveraging technology to enhance face-to-face interactions. The presence of ‘student engagement’ in this cluster underscores the potential of blended learning to increase student participation and motivation. Research has shown that well-designed blended learning environments could lead to higher levels of student engagement compared to traditional face-to-face or fully online courses (Halverson & Graham, 2019). This engagement is often attributed to the flexibility and interactivity offered by blended approaches. Closely related to this foundational cluster are ‘hybrid learning’ (#7) and ‘collaborative learning’ (#1). The hybrid learning cluster, with terms like ‘digital competence,’ ‘distance learning,’ and ‘learning technologies,’ reflects the evolving nature of blended learning as it incorporates more sophisticated digital elements. The emergence of hybrid learning as a distinct cluster suggests a nuanced approach to integrating face-to-face and online learning, potentially incorporating more advanced technologies and pedagogies. Within this cluster, the emphasis on digital competence underscores the significance of cultivating students' technological prowess alongside domain-specific knowledge, thus equipping them for a digitally-driven workforce. The collaborative learning cluster (#1), encompassing terms such as 'web 2.0,' 'English for academic purposes,' and 'bilingual education,' accentuates the value of interactive and participatory methodologies in blended environments. The prominence of this cluster signifies a paradigm shift from conventional, instructor-centric approaches towards more learner-oriented, dynamic models. This transition resonates with constructivist learning theories and illustrated the capacity of blended environments to nurture meaningful interactions among peers and between students and instructors (Szeto & Cheng, 2016). The inclusion of language-specific terms (English for academic/specific purposes, bilingual education) in the collaborative learning cluster suggests that blended learning is being actively explored in language education contexts. This may be due to the unique advantages blended approaches offer for language learning, such as opportunities for authentic communication, access to diverse language resources, and the ability to practice language skills both synchronously and asynchronously (Ahmad, 2021).
Figure 4 | Cluster view of keyword co-occurrence for BLHE research
Several clusters focus on the theoretical underpinnings and learning processes in blended environments. These include ‘self-regulated learning’ (#3), ‘community of inquiry’ (#10), and ‘learning communities’ (#9). The self-regulated learning cluster (#3), with terms like ‘mixed methods,’ ‘learning strategies,’ and ‘social network analysis,’ highlights the importance of learner autonomy and metacognition in blended contexts. This reflects a growing recognition that successful blended learning requires students to develop skills in managing their own learning processes (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). The inclusion of ‘social network analysis’ in this cluster is intriguing, suggesting that researchers are exploring the social aspects of self-regulated learning in blended environments, perhaps examining how students' social connections influence their self-regulation strategies. The presence of ‘critical thinking’ in this cluster aligns with the idea that self-regulated learning could foster higher-order thinking skills. Blended learning environments, by their nature, often require students to navigate complex information landscapes, make decisions about their learning paths, and reflect on their progress – all activities that could promote critical thinking (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). The community of inquiry framework (cluster #10), with its emphasis on teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence, has been particularly influential in blended learning research (Garrison et al., 1999). Its appearance as a distinct cluster underscores its significance in understanding the dynamics of blended learning environments. The inclusion of terms like ‘deep learning’ and ‘synchronous teaching model’ within this cluster suggests ongoing research into how to foster meaningful, collaborative learning experiences in blended settings. The CoI framework provides a valuable lens for understanding the complex interactions that occur in blended learning environments. Teaching presence refers to the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes. Social presence is the ability of learners to project their personal characteristics into the community of inquiry, thereby presenting themselves as 'real people.' Cognitive presence is the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse (Garrison et al., 1999). The learning communities cluster (#9), featuring terms such as ‘technology-enhanced learning,’ ‘undergraduate education,’ and ‘reflective practice,’ reflects the growing recognition of social learning theories in blended education. This cluster emphasizes the importance of creating supportive, interactive learning environments that extend beyond the traditional classroom (Wenger, 1998). The inclusion of ‘digital immigrants’ and ‘digital natives’ in this cluster suggests that researchers are considering generational differences in technology use and learning preferences when designing blended learning communities.
Table 6
Important clusters of keywords in BLHE research.
| cluster ID | size | silhouette | cluster names (LLR) | LSI primary | LSI secondary | LLR |
| 0 | 51 | 0.903 | blended learning | blended learning; collaborative learning; teaching evaluations; instructional change; online education | online learning; student satisfaction; learning strategy; physical education; virtual learning | blended learning (133.65, 1.0E-4); higher education (68.21, 1.0E-4); flipped classroom (38.68, 1.0E-4); online learning (35.66, 1.0E-4); student engagement (17.75, 1.0E-4) |
| 1 | 49 | 0.789 | collaborative learning | blended learning; collaborative learning; continuous assessment; adaptive tests; technology quality | formative assessment; learning report; formative feedback; teaching bpm; distance learning education | collaborative learning (24.22, 1.0E-4); web 2.0 (23.61, 1.0E-4); English for academic purposes (23.36, 1.0E-4); English for specific purposes (18.68, 1.0E-4); bilingual education (18.68, 1.0E-4) |
| 2 | 48 | 0.873 | continuance intention | blended learning; mobile learning; technology adoption; mixed methods; new technologies | continuance intention; academic self-efficacy; intrinsic motivation; mandatory environments; success model | continuance intention (21.51, 1.0E-4); grounded theory (16.25, 1.0E-4); technology acceptance (16.25, 1.0E-4); utaut (15.3, 1.0E-4); technology acceptance model (12.53, 0.001) |
| 3 | 47 | 0.759 | self-regulated learning | blended learning; online learning; social capital; learning strategies; education | self-regulated learning; blended course designs: academic success; czech republic; self-reported measures | self-regulated learning (27.89, 1.0E-4); mixed methods (14.77, 0.001); learning strategies (13.85, 0.001); social network analysis (12.31, 0.001); critical thinking (10.37, 0.005) |
| 4 | 47 | 0.731 | curriculum design | blended learning: public health; educational modality; work-integrated learning; sustainability assessment | online learning; educational technology; hybrid learning; multi-criteria decision; decision making | curriculum design (14.38, 0.001); continuing professional development (14.38, 0.001); online and blended learning (14.38, 0.001); communities of practice (14.37, 0.001); professional development (12.18, 0.001) |
| 5 | 41 | 0.854 | work-integrated learning | work-integrated learning; scoping review; learning design; self-directed learning; study behaviors | blended learning; transparency assessment; research methods; descriptive review; work placements | work-integrated learning (100.14, 1.0E-4); blended learning (40, 1.0E-4); employability (30.82, 1.0E-4); online learning (17.18, 1.0E-4); work integrated learning (16.01, 1.0E-4) |
| 6 | 31 | 0.866 | teaching/learning strategies | blended learning; digital content; hybrid learning; management studies; student-generated media | learning strategies; pedagogical issues; improving classroom teaching; adult learning; digital content | teaching learning strategies (37.5, 1.0E-4); pedagogical issues (25.6, 1.0E-4); improving classroom teaching (20.84, 1.0E-4); distributed learning environments (20.33, 1.0E-4); lifelong learning (19.58, 1.0E-4) |
| 7 | 29 | 0.86 | hybrid learning | blended learning; online learning. social science; academic health; information technology | hybrid learning; engineering education; computer-aided design; linear auto-regression; data mining | hybrid learning (30 35, 1.0E-4); digital competence (24.71, 1.0E-4); distance learning (24.49, 1.0E-4); learning design (15.34, 1.0E-4); learning technologies (15.12, 0.001) |
| 8 | 27 | 0.925 | game-based learning | Blended learning; game-based learning; advanced classroom technology; interactive tools; traditional learning | Open educational resources; advanced classroom applications; learning space design; serious games; didactical innovations | Game-based learning (41.77, 1.0E-4); flipped learning (41.77, 1.0E-4); learning by-doing (36.33, 1.0E-4); serious games (36.53, 1.0E-4); learning space design (36.53, 1.0E-4) |
| 9 | 24 | 0.834 | learning communities | blended learning; reflective practice; digital immigrants; digital natives; digital storytelling | technology-enhanced learning; undergraduate education༛ gross anatomy education: medical education; task-based language | learning communities (15.39, 1.0E-4); technology-enhanced learning (13.42, 0.001); undergraduate education (13.23, 0.001); community of practice (13.2, 0.001) |
| 10 | 20 | 0.871 | community of inquiry | blended learning;learning style model༛ learning level; deep learning: synchronous teaching model | teaching presence; social presence; cognitive presence; blended learning contexts; inquiry framework | community of inquiry (25.79, 1.0E-4); teaching presence (25.09, 1.0E-4); social presence (17.17, 1.0E-4); cognitive presence (12.7, 0.001); adult education (9.84, 0.005) |
Clusters related to technological aspects include ‘game-based learning’ (#8) and elements of ‘continuance intention’ (#2), which often deals with technology adoption. These clusters reflect the ongoing integration of innovative technologies in blended learning environments. Game-based learning's emergence as a distinct cluster (#8), with terms like ‘serious games,’ ‘learning by-doing,’ and ‘learning space design,’ suggests a growing interest in leveraging gamification and interactive technologies to enhance engagement and learning outcomes in blended settings (Tsay et al., 2018). This cluster highlights the potential of game-based approaches to create immersive, motivating learning experiences that complement traditional instructional methods. The integration of game-based learning in blended environments offers several potential benefits. Games could provide immediate feedback, allow for experimentation and failure in safe environments, and often incorporate elements of storytelling and problem-solving that can enhance engagement and knowledge retention, according to Tsay et al., (2018). Moreover, the ‘learning by-doing’ approach inherent in many games aligns well with constructivist learning theories that underpin much of blended learning design (Moreno-Ger et al., 2008). The continuance intention cluster (#2), featuring terms such as ‘technology acceptance,’ ‘UTAUT’ (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology), and ‘grounded theory,’ indicates researchers' interest in understanding factors that influence the sustained use of blended learning technologies. They are crucial for ensuring the long-term success and adoption of blended learning approaches (Bhattacherjee, 2001). The presence of ‘grounded theory’ in this cluster suggests that researchers are employing qualitative, inductive approaches to understand technology acceptance in blended learning contexts. This methodological choice allows for the development of context-specific theories that could capture the nuanced factors influencing technology adoption in diverse educational settings.
Clusters focused on design aspects include ‘curriculum design’ (#4), ‘work-integrated learning’ (#5), and elements of ‘teaching/learning strategies’ embedded in other clusters. These clusters highlight the importance of thoughtful design in blended learning implementations. The curriculum design cluster (#4), with terms like ‘continuing professional development,’ ‘communities of practice,’ and ‘multi-criteria decision,’ underscores the need for intentional and pedagogically sound approaches to blended learning. This cluster suggests a focus on designing blended learning experiences that are aligned with professional development needs and foster ongoing learning communities. The inclusion of ‘multi-criteria decision’ in this cluster is particularly interesting, as it suggests that researchers are exploring complex decision-making processes in curriculum design for blended learning. This could involve balancing various factors such as learning objectives, technological constraints, student preferences, and institutional resources when designing blended curricula. The work-integrated learning cluster (#5), featuring terms such as ‘employability,’ ‘scoping review,’ and ‘self-directed learning,’ suggests a trend towards aligning blended learning with professional and vocational education (Wuxue, 2023). This cluster highlights the potential of blended approaches to bridge the gap between academic learning and workplace requirements, potentially enhancing students' employability and career readiness. The emphasis on ‘self-directed learning’ within this cluster aligns well with the demands of many modern workplaces, where employees are often expected to take initiative in their own learning and professional development. Blended learning approaches, by offering flexibility and promoting self-regulation, may be particularly well-suited to preparing students for these workplace expectations.
While not appearing as a distinct cluster, assessment and evaluation themes are present within several clusters, particularly in ‘collaborative learning’ (#1) and ‘curriculum design’ (#4). Terms like ‘continuous assessment,’ ‘formative feedback,’ and ‘adaptive tests’ within these clusters reflect the ongoing challenges and innovations in assessing student learning in blended environments (Gikandi et al., 2011). This cross-cutting theme suggests that researchers have been exploring ways to leverage both online and face-to-face components of blended learning for more effective and diverse assessment strategies. Continuous assessment and formative feedback, in particular, align well with the iterative and interactive nature of many blended learning approaches. These assessment strategies could provide ongoing insights into student progress, allowing for timely interventions and personalized support. The presence of ‘adaptive tests’ in the curriculum design cluster points to an interest in using technology to create more personalized assessment experiences. Adaptive testing, which adjusts the difficulty or content of questions based on a student's performance, could be particularly powerful in blended learning environments (Barla et al., 2010) where data on student performance can be collected and analyzed in real-time.