A D ES IG NE R' S LOG 222 OL, after a decade of trial and error during which time it was known mainly as an asynchronous-based form of education (Hiltz & Goldman, ; Twigg, ), is currently entering its second generation, that of blended online learning, a generation characterized by the redesign of university courses (Garrison & Vaughan, ). As a result, increasingly numerous forms of blended learning are currently being implemented on campuses throughout North America (Park & Bonk, ), combining various kinds of OL activities and culminating in what is termed the blended online learning environment. It should be noted that the so-called fth generation of DE (Taylor, ) has intentionally not been included here as it is felt that it might better be described as rst-generation online learning. To sum up, the results of this study suggest that, in short, ) faculty are increasingly encouraged to support university outreach by their administration (Dudestadt, Atkins & Van Howseling, ); ) as they do so, they are encountering obstacles which prevent their applying the classical DE model (Sammons & Ruth, ) and ) new technological means are reacquainting faculty with “continuity of practice” in their pedagogy (Power, b). Because synchronous-mode, virtual classrooms are not yet mainstream in higher education (Keegan, Schwenke, Fritsch, Kenny, Kismihok, Biro, Gabor, O’Suilleabhain, & Nix, ; Ng, ), more research, especially eld research (Abrami & Bernard, ), into this promising eld of inquiry is important. is study, based directly on eld observations and documented case studies, introduces the blending online learning environment concept and identies its import to higher education, alluding also to possible positive eects on the eld of instructional design and technology. It is felt that this study contributes to sparse yet necessary research for sustainable and cost- eective university outreach as well as to eective human and material resources deployment. More specically, this study addresses a need for a teaching and learning environment that accurately reects faculty realities, providing both a resource-rich structure and multiple opportunities for both real- time and diered dialog between learners as well as between learners and faculty. It suggests that there is a need for balance between the aims of administration, faculty limits and learner needs and it establishes bottom-line requirements for structure and dialogue in a workable 223 E P I LO GU E teaching-learning environment. It is posited that this can be achieved by blending newly-available information and communication technologies (ICT) to provide online learners with a complete OL environment, faculty with a feasible alternative to restrictive on-campus teaching and administration with the means to manage responsible outreach. Despite some research design-related limits (limited sample, on-going studies), the ndings and related theorizations in this article may enable designers, faculty members as well as administrators to better understand and act upon some of the basic issues surrounding the design, redesign and delivery of blended online learning. Bibliography Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Wade, C.A., Schmid, R.F., Borokhovski,E., Tamim, R., Surkes, M., Lowerison, G., Zhang, D., Nicolaidou, I., Newman, S., Wozney, L. & Peretiatkowicz, A. (2006). A Review of E-learning in Canada: A Rough Sketch of the Evidence, Gaps and Promising Directions. Montreal: Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, April 3. Anderson, T., Ed. (2008). eory and Practice of Online Learning. Athasbasca, AB: Athabasca University. http://www.aupress.ca/books/ Terry_Anderson.php Ausubel, D. (1963). e Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune & Stratton. Block, J. (1982). Assimilation, Accommodation, and the Dynamics of Personality Development. Child Development, Vol. 53, No. 2 (April), 281–295. Bloom, B.S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Boettcher, J. V. & Conrad, R. (2004). Faculty guide for moving teaching and learning to the Web (2 nd ed.). Phoenix: League for Innovation in the Community College. A D ES IG NE R' S LOG 226 Bonk, C.J. & Graham, C. R., Eds. (2006). Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeier. Brien, R. (1992). Design pédagogique: Introduction à l’approche de Gagné et de Briggs. Ste-Foy, QC: Les Éditions St-Yves. Carr-Chellman, A.A. (2005). E-learning: rhetoric versus reality. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cliord, V.A. (2004). Book Review. Learning through storytelling in higher education. Using reection and experience to improve learning. J. McDrury & M. Alterio, (2003) London: Kogan and Page. In International Journal for Academic Development, Vol. 10, No. 1, May, 63–70. Colbeck, C.L. , Campbell, S. C. , & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 60–83. Dick, W. & Carey, L. (2000). e systematic design of instruction (5th ed.) New York: Addison-Wesley. Dick, W., Carey, L. & Carey, J. O. (2007). e systematic design of instruction (7th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Merrill. Duderstadt, J.J., Atkins, D.E. & Van Houweling, D. (2002). Higher Education in the Digital Age: Technology Issues and Strategies for American Colleges and Universities. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing. Duval, E., Hodgkins, W., Rehak, D. & Robson, R. (2003). Learning Objects 2003 Symposium: lessons learned, questions asked. Retrieved on Sept 14 2008: Available at: http://www.cs.kuleuven. ac.be/~erikd/PRES/2003/LO2003/index.html Evans, T. (2001). Changing universities, changing work: A consideration of diversity, change and the (re)organisation of work in higher education. Proceedings of the Teaching and learning conference, 2001: Tertiary teaching and learning: Dealing with diversity, 184–196. Fahy, P.J. (2003). Indicators of Support in Online Interaction. e International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 4, No. 1. Flanagan, J.C. 1954. e critical incident technique. Psychological bulletin, 51 (4), 327–358. . Gaps and Promising Directions. Montreal: Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, April 3. Anderson, T., Ed. (2008). eory and Practice of Online Learning. Athasbasca, AB: Athabasca. Proceedings of the Teaching and learning conference, 2001: Tertiary teaching and learning: Dealing with diversity, 184–196. Fahy, P.J. (2003). Indicators of Support in Online Interaction. e International. technological means are reacquainting faculty with “continuity of practice” in their pedagogy (Power, b). Because synchronous-mode, virtual classrooms are not yet mainstream in higher education