The use of blended learning from the perspective of students

By Christine Enowmbi Tambe

Updated Apr 08, 2026

1. Introduction

Blended learning (BL) can improve learning outcomes, but students experience it very differently when the out-of-class workload becomes hard to manage. When several modules rely on online preparation at the same time, flexibility can quickly turn into overload.

That challenge emerged clearly in a curriculum-wide evaluation of a four-year Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) programme at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where blended learning had been implemented across 14 required lecture-based courses in the first three years. In their paper (1), Margolis, Porter, and Pitterle identified instructional best practice recommendations from the perspective of students at the UW-Madison School of Pharmacy. They ran three focus groups, one from each of the first three didactic years of the PharmD programme, with 8 to 9 students purposefully selected from each year's class council. The class council's role was to relay student feedback on classmates' learning experiences to course faculty and suggest potential improvements. Members had experience of different BL approaches and a range of GPAs, while still reflecting the broader academic profile of their cohort. An academic advisor and a facilitator met with each focus group during a class council meeting in the final month of the Spring semester to review BL experiences from the previous academic year and identify opportunities for quality improvement. The audio-recorded meetings were transcribed and coded for common themes. Ten best practices emerged, offering a practical checklist for designing blended learning that students can actually keep up with.

2. Blended learning best practices

Together, these ten practices show how instructors can make blended learning feel more manageable, more purposeful, and more valuable to students.

2.1. Setting the stage

Students found out-of-class work easier to manage when the syllabus clearly mapped BL activities, due dates, and grading information from the start of the semester. They also wanted estimated durations for out-of-class activities, which helps them plan their workload realistically rather than guessing how long preparation will take.

2.2. Consistency with team teaching

Consistency mattered especially in team-taught courses. Students found it harder to stay organised when different instructors used different communication channels, assigned uneven amounts of out-of-class work, or posted online materials at inconsistent times. They preferred a single, reliable method of communication across a course. If instructors planned to use different BL formats, such as different technologies or activity types, students wanted that variation explained in the syllabus at the beginning of the semester.

2.3. Timeliness

Timeliness was essential because students can only prepare well when materials arrive early enough to fit around other commitments. Across all three focus groups, the consensus was that posting online material at least two weeks before the class session or due date gave students a fair window to complete the work properly.

2.4. Time on task

Time on task emerged as one of the strongest concerns. Students wanted compensation, often through cancelled face-to-face lectures, when online course work was expected to take 15 minutes or more. They noted that online lectures often took longer than the recorded audio length because they paused to take notes and revisit difficult sections. The pressure increased when several courses assigned online activities at the same time without reducing in-person contact. In those conditions, students could fall behind, skip class because they did not feel prepared, or prioritise one activity at the expense of another, even when online material was assessed. One focus group preferred not to cancel face-to-face sessions and instead wanted more in-person time for deeper practical application. The authors noted that this group had the fewest BL courses and had already experienced a replacement model with time off, which may explain why their view differed.

2.5. Accountability

Students were more likely to complete material before class when accountability was built into the course. Completion points, quizzes, and assignments encouraged them to engage more seriously with online lecture material, a pattern also seen in student feedback on flipped teaching. That, in turn, made in-person sessions more productive.

2.6. Structured active learning

Students saw the greatest value in face-to-face time when it was structured around applying online material rather than repeating it. Examples included real-world case discussions, practice problems, think-pair-share and buzz group discussions, clicker questions, and minute papers. These activities helped students identify gaps in their understanding, participate more actively, and see a clear reason to complete out-of-class work in advance. Students were frustrated when instructors repeated the online lesson or introduced a new topic during face-to-face time instead of focusing on application.

2.7. Faculty feedback on student preparation

Students in one focus group said their learning experience improved when instructors used performance data from pre-class activities, such as quizzes or assignments, to shape review and application during in-person discussions. This kind of targeted feedback loop helps class time focus on the concepts students actually need help with.

2.8. Incorporating student feedback into the course

Students appreciated it when faculty incorporated their suggestions into BL courses in real time, where feasible and appropriate. They also valued hearing back about the changes that had been made, because closing that loop made feedback feel worthwhile and encouraged future participation.

2.9. Reviewing online material during class

Students suggested that instructors could briefly revisit difficult online material at the start of in-person sessions, especially when concepts were complex. However, they still wanted most class time devoted to active learning and practical application rather than extended recap.

2.10. Technology

Technology supported learning best when it reduced friction. Students valued tools that let them adjust audio speed or move easily between topics, because those features made it easier to learn at their own pace. Instructors were also advised to seek technological support when developing and implementing BL activities so the tools strengthen, rather than complicate, the learning experience.

3. Concluding remarks

Overall, students described BL positively when it led to structured active learning, stronger support with problem solving, better alignment of knowledge before class activities, more frequent review of course material, and greater flexibility in how they used their time. Their main concerns were not about the idea of BL itself, but about how it was managed, especially setting expectations, posting materials on time, and keeping workloads proportionate.

If out-of-class requirements become excessive, Margolis, Porter, and Pitterle (1) suggested that instructors should consider reducing face-to-face time or increasing credit hours for the class. Applying the ten best practices from this case study should make it easier for students to complete activities on time, arrive prepared, and get more value from in-person teaching. These recommendations also align with wider literature on student preferences for BL (2, 3). At an institutional level, the authors suggested supporting BL through faculty engagement with the best practices, formal training in BL course design, and a BL calendar that details the timing and duration of online activities, alongside any time off from class. For institutions collecting open-text feedback, text analysis software for education can help surface comments on workload, pacing, and consistency as early signals that blended learning design needs attention.

FAQ

Q: How do students' individual differences in student needs and preferences affect their perception of blended learning best practices?

A: Students' needs and preferences shape how they experience blended learning. Some students value the flexibility to work at their own pace, while others find online components harder to manage or less engaging than face-to-face teaching. That variation is why student feedback matters so much in BL design. When educators regularly collect and act on student comments, they can adjust workload, pacing, and support to suit a wider range of learners. Analysing open-text feedback also helps institutions spot recurring concerns across modules, not just isolated complaints.

Q: What challenges do students face in managing their time effectively with the increased out-of-class workload required by blended learning, and how can these challenges be addressed?

A: The biggest challenge is cumulative workload. When several modules use BL at once, pre-class tasks can expand beyond what students can realistically complete, which creates stress and leaves some students underprepared for class. Clear schedules, realistic time estimates, coordinated deadlines, and appropriate time compensation all help students manage this better. These are the same design pressures that shape inverted learning methods in higher education. Reviewing open-text feedback also helps course teams identify where workload is slipping out of proportion, so they can adjust pacing before it harms engagement or wellbeing.

Q: How can instructors ensure that the technology used in blended learning enhances rather than hinders the learning experience, especially considering the diverse technological proficiency among students?

A: Technology improves blended learning when it lowers friction instead of adding another barrier. Students benefit most from tools that are easy to navigate, support flexible learning behaviours such as playback control, and work consistently across activities. Instructors also need strong implementation support, including tutorials, FAQs, and timely technical help. Student feedback is essential because it reveals where tools are confusing, inaccessible, or slowing learning. Analysing that feedback at scale makes it easier to prioritise the fixes that will improve the student experience most.

References

[1] Margolis AR, Porter AL, Pitterle ME. Best practices for use of blended learning. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2017 Apr 1;81(3).
DOI: 10.5688/ajpe81349

[2] Khanova J, Roth MT, Rodgers JE, McLaughlin JE. Student experiences across multiple flipped courses in a single curriculum. Medical education. 2015 Oct;49(10):1038-48.
DOI: 10.1111/medu.12807

[3] Nematollahi S, St John PA, Adamas-Rappaport WJ. Lessons learned with a flipped classroom. Medical education. 2015 Nov 1;49(11):1143-.
DOI: 10.1111/medu.12845

Request a walkthrough

Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo

See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.

All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.

Prefer email? info@studentvoice.ai

UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround