The Potential for Blended Learning in Further Education

Further education sits at the heart of the UK’s skills agenda, with an ambitious goal of serving a widely diverse population of learners, ranging from school leavers and apprentices to retraining adults and supporting life-long learning approaches.

There has never been a one size fits all approach that could truly meet the needs of such learner variability with the fixed model of classroom delivery becoming too limited and inflexible to a proportion of learners. However, blending modalities or learning environments does offer a more flexible, responsive and evidence-informed way forward, combining the strengths of face-to-face teaching with the reach and convenience of online learning experiences.

Where can organisations start with their blended learning transition?  We propose defining what blended learning is, how it can work in practice, the benefits it brings, the different ways your college can implement it, and the long-standing challenges it can help to solve.

Interest in blended approaches has accelerated sharply over the past decade, driven first by sector policy and more recently by commitment to quality and flexibility following emergency education provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the case for blended learning in further education is not simply that technology is now more widely incorporated, it is that a carefully designed blend can deliver better quality, fairer and more sustainable provision than either the traditional classroom or fully online learning can achieve on their own. Understanding how to get that blend right is what separates provision that genuinely improves outcomes from provision that merely adds technology or digital content for its own sake.

Successful blended learning should not be thought of as “some online and some in-person” learning, but as the deliberate, thoughtful integration of the two. Educational pioneers in the field Garrison and Vaughan (2008) define blended learning as “the integration of thoughtfully selected and complementary face-to-face and online approaches and technologies.” The key word is integration. An effective blended course is redesigned from the ground up so that what happens in the online environment and what happens in the face-to-face experience reinforce one another rather than simply running in parallel or as additional content.

This is an important distinction as the rapid shift to remote teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic was, for most institutions, an emergency response rather than a planned pedagogical approach. Researchers have called this “emergency remote teaching” or “emergency distance learning” in order to separate it from purposefully designed online and blended provision (Hodges et al., 2020; Tuffnell, 2021). Blended learning, properly understood, is the considered, strategic alternative provision that is designed in advance, grounded in evidence-based pedagogy, and built around the learner.

In an FE context, blended learning can describe anything from a plumbing course where theory is studied online and practical skills are taught in the workshop, to a Level 3 programme where short video explanations are watched before class so that classroom time is freed up for discussion, problem-solving and feedback.

Effective blended learning rests on good design rather than on technology or digital content. A widely used framework for understanding what makes online and blended courses work is the Community of Inquiry model (Garrison and Arbaugh, 2007), which identifies three overlapping “presences” that together create a meaningful learning experience.

• Teaching presence, the design, structure, facilitation and direction of learning. Strong teaching presence helps reduce the sense of isolation that learners can otherwise feel in online settings.
• Cognitive presence, the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through reflection and discourse, moving from a triggering question through to resolution and application.
• Social presence, the degree to which learners feel connected to one another and to their tutor as real people, enabling open communication and a sense of belonging (Tuffnell, 2021).

In practice, this means a blended course is planned so that online and in-person elements each support these presences. Content delivery, explanations, demonstrations, readings and reference material, can often be moved online, where learners can work through it at their own pace and revisit it as needed. Face-to-face time is then reserved for the things that benefit most from being together: discussion, questioning, hands-on practice, coaching and assessment.

One of the most established models for achieving this is the flipped classroom, in which learners engage with new material before a session so that contact time can focus on active exploration and application rather than didactic delivery (Bergmann and Sams, 2014; Talbert, 2017). Tuffnell (2023) notes that this approach makes more efficient use of contact time because in-person interaction can be focused on learners’ needs rather than on transmitting information. Achieving this well, however, depends on tutors having the design skills to select appropriate digital content and to plan activities that genuinely build on it.

A growing body of research points to several strategic benefits of well-designed blended learning, particularly around flexibility, engagement, skills development and outcomes (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008; Tuffnell, 2024).

By moving some learning online, colleges can offer study patterns that fit around work, caring responsibilities and travel. For adult learners and apprentices in particular, this flexibility can be the difference between being able to enrol and being shut out. This flexibility was a central motivation behind the sector’s policy push towards online and blended delivery following the FELTAG report (FELTAG, 2014).

When designed thoughtfully, blended approaches shift learners from passive recipients to active participants, freeing classroom time for collaboration, problem-solving and feedback. This is associated with deeper engagement and a more positive impact on the achievement of learning outcomes (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008).

Studying in a blended environment helps learners develop the digital confidence, self-management and independent learning skills that employers increasingly expect, skills that are valuable in their own right alongside the subject being studied.

Online materials can be paused, replayed and accessed with assistive technology, allowing learners to work at their own pace. This can be especially valuable for those who need more time, who have additional learning needs, or who are balancing study with other commitments.

Stronger use of data and feedback. Digital platforms (like EQUAL) make it easier to see how learners are progressing, to identify those who are falling behind early, and to target support where it is needed most.

There is no single “correct” blend. The right balance depends on the subject, the learners, the resources available and the intended outcomes. Common models include:

• Flipped learning, core content is delivered online before class, with contact time used for discussion, practice and application. Well suited to theory-heavy and vocational subjects alike.
• Rotation models, learners move between online study, group work and tutor-led sessions within a course or even a single session, a flexible structure that works well in workshop and studio environments.
• Supported online study, a larger proportion of learning takes place online, with scheduled tutorials, drop-ins and check-ins to maintain teaching and social presence and prevent isolation.
• Enrichment blends, mostly classroom-based provision enhanced with online resources, formative quizzes, discussion forums and recorded material for revision and catch-up.

Whichever model is chosen, the FELTAG report encouraged providers not to convert a fixed percentage of delivery to online “en bloc”, but rather to develop a considered strategy that identifies where a greater blend of delivery and assessment adds the most value to each programme (FELTAG, 2014; DfE/ETF, 2021).

Crucially, the success of any model depends on staff. Blended learning places real demands on educators, who need both pedagogical and technological expertise to design effective experiences. The TPACK framework, Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge, is widely used to describe the integrated knowledge teachers need to use technology well (Mishra and Koehler, 2006) and has been shown to be a useful tool for shaping staff development programmes for blended and flipped learning (Tuffnell, 2023; Tuffnell, 2024). Peer-led faculty learning communities, in which staff of varied experience support one another, are an effective and sustainable way to build these capabilities (Tuffnell, 2021).

Blended learning is not simply a modernisation exercise; it can help tackle some of the persistent challenges facing further education.

Flexible study patterns make provision accessible to learners who could not otherwise attend, while early identification of disengagement through digital data can help colleges intervene before a learner drops out.

Blended delivery makes it easier to offer responsive, work-compatible training, supporting apprenticeships and adult upskilling in line with regional and national skills priorities.

By rethinking how contact time is used, blended models can ease pressure on rooms, specialist facilities and staff time, while protecting the high-value, face-to-face activities that learners benefit from most.

Adopting blended learning develops the digital skills of both staff and learners, a recognised priority given that Jisc’s 2024/25 Digital Experience Insights survey found that, while most FE learners rate their digital learning positively, many still report barriers such as a lack of a suitable device or unreliable connectivity (Jisc, 2025).

It is important to be honest about the conditions for success. Blended learning is not a quick fix, and poorly designed provision can widen rather than close gaps. Reliable infrastructure, attention to digital poverty, investment in staff development, and design that maintains teaching and social presence are all essential. When these conditions are met, the evidence suggests blended learning can be genuinely transformative for further education.

Moving to blended learning is a change project as much as a teaching one, and the institutions that succeed tend to approach it strategically rather than piecemeal. A useful starting point is to map existing provision and ask, programme by programme, where a different blend of delivery and assessment would add the most value, for example, where contact time is currently spent on content that could be delivered online, or where flexibility would help recruit and retain learners who struggle to attend.

From there, the priority is investment in people. Because effective blended design draws on pedagogical, technological and subject expertise simultaneously, staff need time, training and support to develop it (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Tuffnell, 2024). Rather than one-off training events, sustained approaches such as faculty learning communities and ongoing mentoring tend to embed new practice more deeply (Tuffnell, 2021). Equally important is infrastructure that learners and staff can rely on, and a clear-eyed plan to address digital poverty so that flexibility does not become a barrier for the very learners blended provision is meant to help. Starting small, evaluating honestly and scaling what works is generally more effective than attempting wholesale change overnight.

At its best, blended learning is not about replacing educators with technology and digital content, or about choosing between the classroom and the screen. It is about designing learning that draws on the strengths of both, keeps the learner at the centre, and is supported by confident, well-prepared staff. For further education, a sector defined by its diversity, its links to employment and its commitment to opportunity, a thoughtful, evidence-informed approach to blended learning offers a powerful way to deliver flexible, engaging and effective provision for every learner.

Bergmann, J. and Sams, A. (2014) Flipped Learning: Gateway to Student Engagement. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Department for Education / Education and Training Foundation (2021) Online and Blended Delivery in Further Education. London: DfE.

Further Education Learning Technology Action Group (FELTAG) (2014) FELTAG: Paths Forward to a Digital Future for Further Education and Skills. London: BIS.

Garrison, D.R. and Arbaugh, J.B. (2007) ‘Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions’, The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), pp. 157,172.

Garrison, D.R. and Vaughan, N.D. (2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. and Bond, A. (2020) ‘The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning’, EDUCAUSE Review.

Jisc (2025) 2024/25 UK Further Education Learners Digital Experience Insights Survey Findings. Bristol: Jisc.

Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. (2006) ‘Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge’, Teachers College Record, 108(6), pp. 1017,1054.

Talbert, R. (2017) Flipped Learning: A Guide for Higher Education Faculty. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Tuffnell, C. (2021) ‘Faculty learning communities: Supporting the development of online educators’, Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2).

Tuffnell, C. (2023) ‘Digital transformation of post-pandemic learning and teaching: Utilising TPACK to support educator development in a flipped learning pilot’, Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(3).

Tuffnell, C. (2024) Supporting the Professional Development of Educators for Blended Learning Design Using TPACK: A Design-Based Research Study. PhD thesis, Lancaster University.