A Comprehensive Review of Federated Learning Integration in the Blended Learning

Landscape: Safeguarding Privacy in a Centralized Learning Management System

Abstract
Federated learning is an innovative paradigm in machine learning that enables multiple clients to develop robust models collabora-
tively without sharing sensitive data. The importance of federated learning is increasing because it emphasizes the privacy concern
of user data. The security of any educational institution is a consideration as the world’s teaching methodologies increasingly use
online platforms. However, through learning management systems (LMSs), we may have a significant influence on higher education
institutions by integrating federated learning with blended learning. This research proposes an architectural design that makes an
association between federated learning and LMS which is incorporated into a central LMS, allowing institutions to provide trained
models rather than local data, and how they might be contemporary in modern education. Besides, the viability of implementing
federated learning and facilitating the exchange of data, features, or updates among multiple blended-learning educational institu-
tions has been analyzed. It helps to investigate the feasibility of embedding federated learning into a cloud-hosted, centralized LMS
reducing the privacy problems associated with data interchange across educational institutions. The findings have the potential
impact on improving institutional cooperation and knowledge sharing, leading to a more safe and effective learning environment.
Keywords: Federated Learning, Blended Learning, Learning Management System (LMS), Cloud-based Centralized Architecture,
Distributed Learning, Security and Privacy-Preserving Models.

1. Introduction promising privacy. The underlying idea is to conduct training

The education landscape has experienced remarkable
changes in the last few years, driven by rapid technological ad-
vances. Conventional education methods are being challenged
and supplemented by imaginative ways that rely upon technol-
ogy’s strengths. Two revolutionary paradigms, including feder-
ated learning and blended learning, have emerged as frontiers
where the domains of technology and pedagogy intersect. So,
it is needed to find the complicated interaction between these
two concepts, exploring their combined impact, potential ben-
efits, and implications for reshaping educational experiences.
A comprehensive review of existing literature reveals abundant
research on federated and blended learning in recent years. Re-
searchers have looked into federated learning’s prospects in a
wide range of areas, such as healthcare, finance, transporta-
tion, and smart devices. Similarly, literature on blended learn-
ing emphasizes its efficacy for improving student participation,
flexibility, and outcomes in diverse educational contexts. How-
ever, there is a significant knowledge gap on how these two
paradigms might complement one another to improve the edu-
cational landscape, particularly within the context of the learn-
ing management system also known as LMS.
Federated learning is a machine learning methodology in-
volving decentralized training data management. In this pro-
cess, data is kept safely by the involved data participants and
remains confidential, without being disclosed to any other en-
tity [1]. In a scholarly article based on federated learning for
data analytics in education, C. Fachola et al. [2] argue this ap-
proach seeks to train and develop machine learning models uti-
lizing distributed datasets over different platforms without com-
Preprint submitted to Journal of Information Security and Applications
on distant systems or in isolated data centers, without transmit-
ting data to centralized repositories, thereby alleviating privacy
threats. This system is compatible with other learning frame-
works [3] and well-suited for edge computing applications, as
suggested by Q. Xia et al. [4]. According to C.J. Bonk and
C.R. Graham [5], blended learning refers to the incorporation of
both conventional in-person teaching and computer-mediated
training. During the technology-mediated components of these
learning experiences, learners are not required to be in the same
physical location, but they may be connected via online com-
munities. In the words of M. Yaman and D. Graf [6], blended
learning alludes to an educational approach that combines con-
ventional face-to-face classroom instruction with online learn-
ing components, thus leveraging the advantages offered by both
modalities of knowledge delivery.
Despite the growing prominence of these two approaches,
there is a significant research gap regarding how they seam-
lessly integrate within the structure of LMS. Prior studies have
typically focused on individual aspects, either diving into the
intricate details of federated learning’s distributed approach or
probing the dynamics of blended learning in isolation. How-
ever, there has been limited research on how federated learning
might improve blended learning’s privacy, security, and integra-
tion within LMS. This research attempts to bridge the research
gap by proposing a distinctive architecture that encompasses
both of these approaches. The synthesis of these paradigms
is anticipated to not only augment data security but also ele-
vate the quality of educational environments. The central hy-
pothesis of this research is the integration of federated learn-
October 4, 2023
ing into the cloud-operated centralized LMS, which can signif-
icantly enhance data privacy, security, and collaborative model
construction among multiple educational institutions practicing
blended learning. This study contributes significantly to institu-
tions, educators, and researchers. The key contributions of this
paper are listed as follows:
1. Present the chronological perspective, core concepts, com-
prehensive categorization of federated learning, and how
this approach can be practically applied to diverse scenar-
ios.
2. Highlight the detailed analysis of historical backgrounds,
theoretical synopsis, and different models of blended
learning by exploring their strengths to enhance educa-
tional outcomes.
3. Undertake an investigation into the evolution of traditional
and blended learning paradigms before, during, and after
the COVID-19 pandemic, offering insights into the trans-
formative impact of global events on education.
4. Demonstrate the LMS platform as a core tool for imple-
menting blended learning among multiple institutions and
identify the significance of data, features, and updates ex-
change across institutions through the LMS.
5. Delve into the privacy and security concerns arising from
the cloud-based centralized and shared LMS infrastructure
and propose a pioneering solution by integrating federated
learning into the LMS, safeguarding data privacy.
2. Federated Learning
The rapid advancement of software and hardware technolo-
gies has provided higher educational institutions with exten-
sive access to diverse datasets from research institutions, aca-
demic departments, student records, admissions, and financial
aid. This accessibility offers a remarkable opportunity for uti-
lizing data science and machine learning methods to enhance
teaching practices, personalize learning experiences, identify
at-risk students, optimize administrative procedures, encourage
interdisciplinary collaborations, spur innovation, and increase
institutional effectiveness. The implementation of data-driven
methodologies can facilitate evidence-based decision-making
and enhanced results, consequently enhancing the achievement
of students and the overall academic community. The shar-
ing of private data among higher educational institutions poses
significant obstacles to the development of efficient analytical
techniques that require diverse, large-scale datasets [7]. The
successful resolution of this challenge holds the utmost signif-
icance in leveraging massive data sets to improve the process
of decision-making and foster innovation within the context
of higher education. Federated learning has gained significant
popularity as a paradigm due to its potential to allow learning
with sensitive data. J. Xu et al. [7] define federated learning
as a technique that involves training a collective global model
2
with a central server while ensuring that all sensitive data re-
mains within the local participants where it originated and this
method holds significant potential for bridging the gap between
sources of data, while protecting privacy.
Federated learning is not an entirely new idea. The ‘Fed-
erated Learning Community (FLC)’ was initially conceptual-
ized by Patrick Hill, a professor of philosophy, in 1976 and
the primary objective of FLC was to facilitate collaborative
learning among individuals, thereby addressing the challenges
of anonymity and isolation faced by students in large research
universities [7, 8]. Following this, numerous endeavors were
undertaken with the objective of constructing federations com-
prising educational materials and repositories of content. D.
Rehak et al. [9] proposed a reference model for the establish-
ment of an interoperable repository infrastructure through the
creation of federations of repositories. This involves the col-
lection of metadata from contributing repositories into a central
registry, which provides a single point of discovery and access.
The overarching objective of this model is to facilitate knowl-
edge acquisition from a wide range of content repositories. In
2016, Google also utilized the concept of federated learning,
which was initially implemented in the keyboard application to
facilitate collaborative learning from multiple Android devices
of users [10].
2.1. Conceptual Overview of Federated Learning
In the majority of machine learning applications, data
sourced from multiple organizations or devices are consolidated
within a central server or cloud platform to facilitate model
training. This constitutes a significant constraint, particularly
in cases where the training data set comprises confidential and
personal data, thereby presenting potential security risks. The
act of transferring private data to a centralized server may re-
sult in the disclosure of sensitive information to the general
public, thereby leading to various consequences. Also, in the
absence of robust privacy protocols, sensitive data is vulner-
able to unauthorized disclosure, cyber-attacks, and associated
risks [11]. As stated by P.M. Mammen [12], federated learning
may be a more optimal choice in such circumstances where this
framework acts as a collaborative machine-learning approach
that involves multiple devices or organizations. Rather than
sharing their local data, the model parameters from local mod-
els are aggregated and shared.
The concept of federated learning involves the challenge of
developing an effective shared global model through the central
server’s training process, utilizing data that is distributed among
numerous clients in a decentralized manner. This approach en-
ables collaborative model training while preserving the privacy
of raw data [13]. Based on the study of S. Niknam et al. [14],
the aim of this methodology is to retain the training dataset in
its original location and conduct the model training on a local
basis for each participant in the federation. Fig. 1 depicts a suc-
cinct visual illustration of the overarching concept of federated
learning throughout several participant institutions.
In the field of institutional data analytics, federated learning
shows plenty of promise. Sensitive data could be stored in the
federated model learning process by regional institutions or by

Figure 1: Federated learning overview across multiple institutions.
specific users for the provider and consumer-based apps, pro-
tecting user privacy [7]. In fact, this framework is a suitable
approach for scenarios where data privacy is a concern, as it
ensures that data is not shared with a third-party central server
[15]. The federated learning process comprises four primary
stages [12]:
1. Client Selection/Sampling: The process involves the
server randomly selecting participants from a pool of de-
vices or utilizing an algorithm for client selection.
2. Parameter Broadcasting: In this method, a certain set
of clients receives the global model parameters from the
server.
3. Local Model Training: The procedure entails the concur-
rent retraining of models by individual customers utilizing
their particular localized data.
4. Model Aggregation: The procedure involves the transfer
of local model parameters from clients to the server, which
is then followed by the aggregate of such parameters to-
wards the global model.
2.2. Categorization of Federated Learning
Federated learning implies a machine learning framework
in which several clients collectively participate in training a
model, under the coordination of a centralized server, while
ensuring that the training data remains decentralized [16].
Data distribution, machine learning model, privacy mechanism,
communication architecture, scale of federation, and motiva-
tion of federation are only a few of the six factors used to
classify federated learning systems [17]. Within this section,
multiple kinds of federated learning frameworks are presented
[12, 15]:
1. Vertical Federated Learning: Vertical federated learning is
employed in scenarios where individual devices possess
datasets that exhibit distinct features yet from the same
sample instances. This approach can be employed by two
3
organizations that possess data associated with the same
group of individuals but with distinct feature sets, in order
to construct a collaborative machine-learning model.
2. Horizontal Federated Learning: Horizontal federated
learning is employed in scenarios where every device pos-
sesses a dataset that shares the same feature space, albeit
with varying sample instances. In instances of this ap-
proach, there exists a degree of feature overlap among the
distributed data across multiple nodes, despite the data be-
ing dissimilar in terms of their sample space.
3. Federated Transfer Learning: Federated transfer learning
shares similarities with conventional machine learning in
that it involves the incorporation of a new feature onto a
pre-existing model. Transfer learning refers to a technique
that facilitates the transfer of knowledge from one domain
to another domain in order to enhance learning outcomes.
4. Cross-Silo Federated Learning: Cross-Silo federated
learning is employed in scenarios where the number of
participating devices is limited and accessible for all
rounds. The training data may be presented in either a
horizontal or vertical federated learning format. The term
‘cross-silo’ is commonly utilized in the context of inter-
organizational scenarios.
5. Cross-Device Federated Learning: Cross-device federated
learning is employed in situations where a significant num-
ber of devices are involved. Client selection and incentive
designs are two prominent strategies that are essential for
facilitating this particular kind of federated learning.
2.3. Application Landscape of Federated Learning
The applications of federated learning allow the acquisi-
tion of additional knowledge by machine learning algorithms
from diverse datasets. This is beneficial in applications includ-
ing healthcare, education, transportation, finance, retail, insur-
ance, virtual keyboard prediction, and smart devices [7, 12, 18]
where data privacy is vital. In addition, this framework has ex-
panded to a broad spectrum of other industries, such as wireless
communication, robotics, edge computing, networking, rec-
ommender systems, robotics, grid-world, and electric vehicles
[11]. In the view of K. Bonawitz et al. [19], federated learn-
ing mostly revolves around supervised learning tasks, whereby
labels frequently originate from input from participants such as
clicks or typed phrases. In this sequel, it has been discussed
several applications of federated learning:
1. Healthcare: Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are a sig-
nificant repository of health data for machine learning
(ML) [20]. Each hospital may have a lot of patient
data, but not enough to train prediction algorithms [21].
ML models trained on a single hospital’s inadequate data
might bias forecasts. Therefore, distributing data across
providers makes models easier to generalize by training
them with additional data. Hospitals may not be able to ex-
change patients’ electronic medical records due to the sen-
sitive nature of healthcare data. Federated learning could
 potentially be used to create a collaborative healthcare data
learning model preserving data privacy.
2. Smart Transportation: The growing number of sensors
in vehicle networks makes it possible to acquire more
data and train machine-learning models. ML models
are often used in traffic and transportation administra-
tion [22]. Existing automatic driving judgments are con-
strained through altered surroundings and offline training.
Federated learning might assist with precise feature label-
ing by training automobiles online from multiple places.
Similar data is needed for traffic flow prediction, but much
of it is separated across organizations and can’t be trans-
mitted to safeguard privacy [23]. Federated learning ap-
proaches might handle similar issues.
3. Mobile Devices: Mobile device storage and computing
power are growing rapidly. Meeting rising quality de-
mands from cellphone users is challenging due to inade-
quate connection bandwidth. Therefore, most providers
choose to provide a service atmosphere at the edge of the
mobile network near the consumer rather than combine
cloud computing and cloud storage in the core network to
decrease network congestion. Known as mobile edge com-
puting (MEC), this technology carries the danger of data
leakage. Researchers developed an “In-Edge AI” model
that combines federated learning based on deep reinforce-
ment learning with the MEC system to improve resource
allocation [24]. Additionally, Y. Qian et al. [25] used fed-
erated learning on MEC. The framework uses smart gad-
gets that are linked to the internet to train ML models to-
gether.
4. Finance and Banking: Federated learning in finance is
suitable for loan risk assessment in banks [26]. Typi-
cally, banks employ whitelisting in order to prevent clients
from utilizing central bank credit card reports. Collabora-
tion with other financial institutions and e-commerce en-
terprises might use taxation, reputation, etc. for risk man-
agement. As sharing consumer data across enterprises is
risky, federated learning might be used to develop a risk
assessment ML model.
5. Industrial Engineering: Following federated learning’s as-
cent and maturity, it may have broad acceptance and prac-
tical potential in data-sensitive industrial engineering do-
mains. Inconvenient interchangeable monitor data mo-
tivated researchers to develop a distinctive environmen-
tal monitoring frame based on federated region learning
(FRL) [27]. Thus, monitoring data from several sensors
might boost collaborative model performance. This frame-
work is also used for visual inspection [28]. It might alle-
viate the issue of missing faulty samples to identify manu-
facturing flaws and safeguard manufacturers’ privacy.
3. Blended Learning
The term ‘blended’ denotes a mixture or combination.
Blended learning refers to an approach to instruction that
4
Figure 2: Blended learning overview.
combines traditional face-to-face teaching methods with
technology-mediated learning, particularly via internet-based
platforms. According to E. Stacey and P. Gerbic [29], the term
‘blended learning’ implies the utilization of ICT to enable the
integration of learning and teaching approaches. From the per-
spective of D.R. Garrison and H. Kanuka [30], blended learning
is ”the deliberate combination of in-person classroom learning
with digitally delivered content”. K. Thorne [31] states this
pedagogy as a combination of electronic learning and multi-
media technology, including elements such as video stream-
ing, virtual classrooms, and online text animation, with conven-
tional classroom instruction. Blended learning can be defined
as a structured educational initiative wherein students engage
in a combination of online and traditional learning methods.
M. Cleveland-Innes and D. Wilton [32] also define this strategy
as ”the utilization of traditional classroom teaching methods in
conjunction with online or virtual learning activities for learn-
ers taking part in the same course with the same learning ma-
terials”. Fig. 2 demonstrates the way face-to-face and online
learning are integrated in a blended learning context.
Learning methods are gradually shifting away from the class-
room and towards what is being referred to as the era of knowl-
edge, in which students may study with anybody, anytime, and
utilize any number of various educational tools [33]. Blended
learning allows students to exercise some level of autonomy in
determining when, where, and how they learn, while also incor-
porating in-person instruction at a physical educational institu-
tion [34]. Based on R. Bleed [35], it is claimed that blended
learning presents a valuable prospect for the reconfiguration of
course development, scheduling, and delivery in higher edu-
cation by integrating both in-person and virtual instructional
methods.
The origins of blended learning may be traced back to the
1840s, with the establishment of the first distance learning
course by Sir Isaac Pitman [36]. Since the emergence of the
internet and learners’ ability to use it in the 1990s, modern e-
learning has continued to rise in popularity [37]. During the first
few years of the twenty-first century, the concept of blended
learning garnered significant interest within the realms of ed-
ucational technology and online learning [38]. By the begin-
ning of the 2000s, educational institutions have used multiple
ways of combining online and conventional classroom instruc-
tion, which are referred to as blended, hybrid, flipped, or in-
verted, and are classified depending on the order of merging
face-to-face and online sessions. In 2010, after a decade of
development and widespread adoption by institutions of many
sorts [39] and this learning method swiftly became the standard
approach to undergraduate study for nearly all learners in 2014
[40]. D. Laurillard [41] posits that the concept of meticulous
integration of traditional and electronic forms of teaching and
learning is seen as a strategy to attain the highest aspirations for
education in the 21st century. In a workshop, a small group of
educational experts agreed that this teaching-learning strategy
was important, needed further investigation, and would likely
have significant pedagogical, administrative, and institutional
ramifications [40]. Based on the meta-analysis conducted by
R.M. Bernard et al. [42] on blended learning in higher educa-
tion, it was found that students enrolled in blended programs
had marginally superior academic performance compared to
those who received conventional instruction in the classroom.
Blended learning facilitates increased levels of engagement
between learners and instructors, learners and others in the
class, learners and the course material, as well as learners and
the interface of the course [43, 44]. This method has the abil-
ity to expand students’ access and flexibility, promote higher
levels of active learning, and provide improved learning en-
vironments and accomplishments. The pedagogical notion of
blended learning has been widely accepted by universities dur-
ing the last two decades and has come to represent the ‘new
normal’ in the field of higher education [45]. S. Hancock and T.
Wong [46] assert that the implementation of a blended learning
approach serves as a viable and low-risk approach to address
the demands posed by the transformative effects of technology
advancements in the realm of higher education. Recent studies
demonstrating heightened awareness and educational programs
intended to encourage its application across several continents,
particularly the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, Europe, Australia,
and the Americas, demonstrate the growing global significance
of this educational method [47, 48, 49]. Clearly, blended learn-
ing has gained widespread acceptance and employment.
3.1. Conceptual Overview of Blended Learning
The concept of blended learning indicates an approach to ed-
ucation that incorporates in-person and online instruction [50].
B. Garner and L. Oke [51] recommend that blended learning
refers to an educational context that integrates traditional class-
room instruction with online learning, with the ultimate goal of
enhancing the educational outcomes of learners. Blended learn-
ing is characterized as a significant transformation in instruc-
tional methodology [52], wherein the flexibility it offers allows
for the integration of online content delivery with the advan-
tageous aspects of classroom interaction and live instruction.
This blend facilitates the customization of learning experiences,
promotes contemplative thinking, and personalizes instruction
according to the distinctive requirements of a diverse range of
learners. This particular educational strategy enables learners
to engage in greater interactions with both instructors and peers
throughout the classroom-based learning experience. In addi-
tion, the application of blended learning has the potential to en-
hance both the learning outcomes and the overall student expe-
rience on an individual level. Nevertheless, the implementation
of blended learning remains under the guidance and supervision
of instructors, who adhere to the predetermined remote learning
framework [53], as demonstrated in Table 1 below.
5
Table 1: Control elements in the blended learning model
Control Elements Description
Learning can now take place outside of classroom
Time
hours, according to one’s availability.
Learners can participate in learning elsewhere than
Place
the classroom, such as at home or in libraries.
Learning can be feasible via interactive and adaptable
Path
software, allowing for personalized learning strategies.
Learning can be customized to the student’s speed,
Pace
allowing them more time if necessary.
In the view of V. Boyd and A. Sampson [54], blended learn-
ing innovation is promoted when there is a solid infrastructure
and shared cultural knowledge of technology’s role in learning,
and it should be collegiate, independent, and founded in peda-
gogies and proper support. This hybrid or mixed concept offers
a flexible and individualized learning system whereby learners
are given the autonomy to manage their educational activities
based on factors such as time, location, method, and speed.
3.2. Models of Blended Learning
The blended learning model is basically a pedagogical ap-
proach that may be effectively implemented via the utiliza-
tion of technology-based media. Blended methods of learning,
which combine formal and informal activities to promote learn-
ing, are becoming more prevalent and desirable in the education
sector [55]. Educators use several strategies in blended learn-
ing, including both traditional in-person approaches and online
resources, in order to cater to the diverse requirements of indi-
vidual students [56]. This approach of learning encompasses
an extensive variety of tactics, methodologies, and aspects, al-
lowing for its versatile use in many contexts [57]. There are
prominent blended learning approaches in higher education, K-
12, and business educational settings [58].
In a study, C.M. Christensen et al. [59] presented a compre-
hensive description of four distinct models of hybrid or blended
education. These models consist of the enhanced virtual model,
the rotation model, the flex model, and the La Carte model.
The researchers pointed out that the majority of blended educa-
tional approaches can be classified into one of these four mod-
els. In the opinion of C.R. Graham [60], these learning models
may manifest themselves at several levels, including the activ-
ity level, lecture level, program level, or institutional level. As
per J. Watson [52], blended learning is a significant compo-
nent of a range that includes both fully online and traditional
face-to-face educational environments. The continuum of this
integrated learning consists of the following categories:
1. A completely online curriculum where all learning is done
online and at distant locations without any in-person com-
ponent.
2. A completely online curriculum with the option of in-
person instruction, although it is not compulsory.
3. A curriculum that is mostly or entirely online, with certain
periods spent in a classroom or computer lab.
 4. Mostly or entirely online curriculum in a computing labo-
ratory or classrooms where students gather every day.
5. Classroom instruction with extensive virtual elements that
extend learning across the classroom.
6. Online resources are utilized in the classroom, but there
are not many mandates for learners to be online.
7. Face-to-face interaction with limited or no online re-
sources or communication.
Presented below are seven example configurations of blended
learning activities, as recommended by A. O’Connell [61], for
your contemplation in connection with your instructional con-
text:
1. Blended face-to-face class: The blended face-to-face class
model, often known as the ”face-to-face driver model,” is
classroom-based but primarily depends on online activi-
ties. This approach requires seat time and supplements in-
person sessions with online readings, quizzes, and other
assessments. As class time is designated for discussions
and collaborative work, learners and teachers can utilize
additional valuable time for learning.
2. Blended online class: This type of class is the opposite of
the blended face-to-face class, and it is often referred to as
the ”online driver model.” The majority of the coursework
for the course is completed online; however, there are a
few in-person requirements, such as attending lectures or
laboratories.
3. The flipped classroom: The flipped classroom flips the
usual class format of listening to a lecture and doing as-
signments from home. Flipped classrooms allow students
to view a brief lecture session online and finish tasks like
group work, projects, and additional exercises in class.
The concept of flipped classrooms is a subset of blended
face-to-face or blended online classes.
4. The rotation model: Online learning is one of the modal-
ities students cycle between in this strategy. Station rota-
tion, lab rotation, and individual rotation are sub-models.
Station rotation is better for K–12 education, whereas lab
rotation is better for college campuses. In the individual
rotation structure, students cycle across learning modali-
ties on an individual timetable.
5. The self-blend model: Self-blending is a program-level
blended learning paradigm with which numerous learners
in higher education are acquainted. This strategy enrolls
students in a school but allows them to participate in on-
line courses as well. They pick their online and in-person
courses without instructor direction.
6. The blended MOOC: Blended MOOCs are a kind of
flipped classroom that combines a massive open online
course with face-to-face sessions. Learners obtain MOOC
6
resources outside of class, possibly from another institu-
tion or teacher whether the course’s content is publicly
available, then attend class for discussions or activities
during class.
7. Flexible-mode courses: Learners participating in flexible-
mode classes are provided with the option to complete
their coursework in either an in-person or online format
since all of the course material is made accessible to indi-
viduals in both formats.
The following example configurations of blended learning
are derived from the context of higher education, although they
may be adapted for other educational settings. The use of this
educational approach has gained substantial momentum due to
its demonstrated efficacy in blending the evolving needs of a
more heterogeneous population of learners. The various meth-
ods may be categorized as low-impact, medium-impact, and
high-impact blends based on their potential effects on the cur-
rent educational curriculum and the learning experience of stu-
dents [62]. Consequently, blended learning strategies prioritize
the inclusion of learning activities outside of the boundaries of
the traditional classroom setting, using the internet as a supple-
mental platform [63].
3.3. Evolving Educational Paradigms: Pre-COVID, Transi-
tion, and Post-COVID Blended Learning Landscape
In this section, we review the dynamic evolution of educa-
tional paradigms, tracing the progression from traditional face-
to-face and blended learning methods prior to the COVID-19
era. We delve into the swift transition to fully online learn-
ing during the pandemic and explore the subsequent embrace
of blended learning models by higher educational institutions
worldwide.
3.3.1. Pre-COVID-19 Traditional and Blended Learning Land-
scape
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant and far-
reaching influence on various facets of human existence on a
global scale [64]. The education sector isn’t an exception; in
fact, it’s one of the most affected, with the pandemic affecting
almost 1.6 billion students in over 190 countries [65, 66]. In the
past, the predominant mode of instruction was in-person, direct
engagement between teachers and students [67]. The traditional
face-to-face learning environment was predominately dominant
until the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was com-
plemented by an emerging pedagogical model of blended learn-
ing. The primary focal point of the face-to-face learning ap-
proach is the facilitation of personal communication between
students and their teachers [68]. Before the pandemic, face-to-
face learning served as the conventional mode of instruction,
with learners physically attending lectures, seminars, and tuto-
rials, and engaging in direct interactions with instructors and
their classmates within the institution. Through this approach
of learning, learners got feedback in real-time, participated in
active discussions, and collaborated to learn, thereby providing
them with a sense of community and academic engagement.
In addition to conventional face-to-face training, blended learn-
ing was gaining popularity in several educational contexts. The
blended approach of learning allows learners to access sup-
plementary online materials, multimedia resources, and asyn-
chronous learning possibilities at that time. Prior to the onset of
the pandemic, the field of higher education witnessed a notable
surge in interest towards blended learning, as educational insti-
tutions sought to leverage technology in novel ways to augment
the overall educational experience and academic outcomes of
their students. Before the onset of the COVID-19 epidemic, the
practice of online learning had already been established, with
the utilization of several platforms. However, following the oc-
currence of the pandemic, the adoption of online learning be-
came imperative rather than discretionary [67].
3.3.2. Transition to Fully Online Learning During COVID-19
The arrival of the COVID-19 epidemic has prompted a rapid
and unprecedented transition in higher education from the more
conventional kind of in-person instruction to an entirely on-
line one. In response to the impending health concerns posed
by the outbreak, educational institutions expeditiously imple-
mented remote teaching practices to safeguard the well-being of
students, teachers, and staff. Many educational activities were
transferred to a virtual teaching and learning mode by using ex-
isting technical infrastructure and software, as well as publicly
accessible digital platforms [69, 70]. The efficiency of online
learning exhibited variability across different levels and kinds
of education at that time [71]. Teachers, many of whom had
little experience with online teaching, had to rapidly adapt their
pedagogical approaches to fit into the online environment, us-
ing learning management systems, video conferencing, discus-
sion forums, and digital assessment tools to interact with the
learners remotely. At the same time, learners had to deal with
new difficulties, including using digital learning platforms, effi-
ciently managing their time in asynchronous learning environ-
ments, and being motivated without face-to-face interactions.
The benefits of online learning include flexible learning that can
be done anytime and anywhere, not just at institutions. Learn-
ers can also express their ideas in a clear and organized way and
have the freedom to choose which courses to take and which as-
signments to do first [72]. The shift to entirely online education
during the pandemic emphasized the value of technology in ed-
ucation and the need for professional development programs to
provide instructors with the necessary skills for efficient online
teaching. Management educators are engaged in constantly ex-
ploring technology and using emerging digital tools. This ini-
tiative aims to promote the use of technology among students
while highlighting different approaches to learning [71]. This
led to the study and merging of different online teaching meth-
ods and learning tools in higher education.
3.3.3. Institutions’ Post-COVID-19 Adaptation to Blended
Learning
Following the global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic
and the subsequent shift to fully online learning, institutions
across the globe have acknowledged the necessity of establish-
ing a more comprehensive and flexible educational system. As
7
online learning part of blended learning was an effective ed-
ucational solution during the COVID-19 pandemic [73], after
the post-pandemic era, many academicians have predicted that
a blended approach to teaching and learning will be inevitable
[74]. Therefore, blended learning methods have seen exten-
sive acceptance and adaptation across institutions after COVID-
19. The blended approach of learning has emerged as a fea-
sible approach to solving the boundaries of entirely remote
learning while capitalizing on the advantages of technology-
enhanced education. These integrated or mixed learning strate-
gies, encompassing the integration of digital resources, inter-
active online activities, and virtual collaboration tools, have
been adopted by educational institutions in conjunction with
traditional in-person instruction. Furthermore, the adaptation
of blended learning acknowledges the necessity of adaptabil-
ity and flexibility in the face of shifting circumstances, pro-
viding educational continuity even during times of difficulty.
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly facilitated the long-
awaited transition and transformation in educational practice.
Scholars predicted that post-COVID-19 educational practice
would see a prevalent adoption of blended teaching and learn-
ing methodologies [75]. Blended learning has emerged as a
transformative paradigm in the higher education landscape fol-
lowing the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. LMS as a Platform for Blended Learning
A learning management system (LMS) is used to implement
blended learning in an educational institution. An LMS is a dig-
ital web application-based platform that facilitates the admin-
istration, distribution, and monitoring of educational courses
and resources. According to a research study conducted by G.
Naveh et al. [76], educators observe an LMS as a comprehen-
sive collection of comprehensive and diversified information
technology (IT) tools used for the development and adminis-
tration of course websites, serving as an essential component of
blended learning. In general, blended learning makes use of an
intelligent tutoring system embedded within an LMS to person-
alize content, presentation, and navigation [77]. The platform
offers a centralized hub that facilitates instructors in organizing
and delivering educational content, enables students to access
learning materials, and allows administrators to monitor student
progress. The learning management system has made informa-
tion accessible and encouraged learning flexibility so that peo-
ple can study whenever they choose from anywhere, without
worrying about location or time [78]. Based on an investigation
published by A.B. Ustun et al. [79], it was observed that the
adoption of LMS among students had a substantial and benefi-
cial impact on their perception of the community and level of
involvement in blended learning. Additional research has also
demonstrated that the incorporation of an LMS in the context of
blended learning may effectively optimize and streamline var-
ious activities, cater to diverse learning preferences, and em-
power learners to exert more autonomy over their educational
experiences, all while effectively adjusting to the dynamic land-
scape of technological advancements. Fig. 3 provides a vi-
sual representation that highlights the need of implementing an

Figure 3: Necessity of LMS in educational institutions to assist blended learn-
ing.
LMS inside the higher educational institution setting to facili-
tate blended learning.
Due to its ability to centralize and optimize various aspects of
the learning process, an LMS is essential for blended learning
in a higher education setting. D. Turnbull et al. [80] state that
learning management systems constitute a fundamental com-
ponent within the educational settings of several institutions,
facilitating a vast array of activities and operations. The goal of
using LMS in educational institutions and corporations is to im-
prove teaching and quality assurance [78]. The platform offers
a comprehensive solution for the delivery of content, manage-
ment of assessments, facilitation of communication, and analy-
sis of data, thereby fostering uniformity, productivity, and effi-
cacy in the realm of education. Mainly, the LMS is an effective
platform that facilitates and enhances students’ learning expe-
riences [81]. Overall, the LMS is a key tool for enabling the
administration and execution of blended learning programs in
institutions.
4.1. The Necessity of Centralized Cloud-Based LMS Across In-
stitutions
Cloud services are an essential component of a contempo-
rary LMS since they offer educators and learners comfort and
simplicity of use [82]. The necessity for a cloud-based cen-
tralized LMS within various institutions in a country or re-
gion arises from the considerations of usability and acceptabil-
ity in blended learning environments. It’s possible to build
an e-learning system that uses cloud computing infrastructure,
which could enhance both investment efficiency and manage-
rial capability [83]. In education, cloud-oriented LMS is com-
monly used to organize and facilitate e-learning [84]. A cloud-
based centrally controlled LMS provides multiple benefits that
fulfill institutions’ various demands and requirements. To be-
gin with, the utilization of cloud infrastructure offers institu-
tions the ability to access and employ shared resources hosted
in the cloud, thereby ensuring scalability, reliability, and flex-
ibility. Students majoring in computers would benefit greatly
from the cloud-hosted LMS that offers a variety of learning op-
tions across SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS [81]. Additionally, the imple-
mentation of a centralized server facilitates streamlined admin-
8
istration and maintenance of the LMS, thereby alleviating the
individual institutions from the responsibility of managing their
own distinct systems. Furthermore, the LMS guarantees secure
access and personalized user experiences by allowing adminis-
trators from various institutions to log in using their unique cre-
dentials. Moreover, the ability to share data or features among
institutions within the centralized system encourages collabo-
ration, resource sharing, and the exchange of best practices.
The cloud-based LMS also improves usability and accessibil-
ity by allowing users to access educational resources and take
part in educational activities from a distance, supporting various
learning preferences and offering a uniform experience across
institutions. It supports the various demands and schedules of
students and teachers participating in blended learning by en-
abling users to use the LMS anytime, anyplace they have an
internet connection. Cost reductions, scalability, and flexibility
are just a few of the many benefits of cloud-based LMS [85].
In essence, a centralized cloud-operated LMS offers a shared
infrastructure, improved usability, and acceptability by supply-
ing scalability, effective administration, secure access, cooper-
ative data sharing, and flexible accessibility across multiple in-
stitutions, thereby facilitating the successful implementation of
blended learning in a region.
4.2. Facilitating Inter-Institutional Data Exchange, Feature
Sharing, and Updates through LMS
LMSs enable users to have meaningful learning experiences
by using various learning styles, addressing individual require-
ments, self-paced learning, and fostering lifelong learning [78].
The sharing and distribution of data, features, and updates
among various institutions within a centralized LMS is of the
utmost importance and carries with it numerous benefits. Insti-
tutions’ data resources and services are typically separate from
one another [86]. The institutions may cooperate and benefit
from one another’s resources, knowledge, and insights by en-
abling administrators from various institutions to log in with
their unique credentials to utilize a shared infrastructure located
in the cloud. Sharing data, like aggregated analytics, enables
evidence-based decision-making and the identification of trends
and patterns that may guide pedagogical decisions and enhance
learning outcomes. Higher educational institutions may im-
prove their collective teaching methods and gain from vari-
ous viewpoints by exchanging model parameters and pedagog-
ical methodologies. By meeting the distinct requirements and
preferences of learners across institutions, the delivery of ed-
ucational materials and tailored suggestions support inclusive
education. Additionally, the sharing of system enhancements
guarantees continuous improvement, efficiency, and a standard-
ized user experience. By facilitating the exchange of data, fea-
tures, and updates within a centrally administered LMS, edu-
cational institutions can promote collaboration, innovation, and
the broader advancement of education.
4.3. Privacy and Security Issues Due to the Centralized and
Shared LMS Infrastructure
E-learning in the cloud reduces the cost and complexity of
data access but compromises security [87]. While the cloud-

Figure 4: Direct exchange of local data among institutions within a centralized
and shared LMS.
hosted LMS facilitates the sharing and distribution of data, fea-
tures, and updates across multiple educational institutions, it
also introduces possible privacy and security issues. Security
concerns and precautions are required and necessary to ensure
the confidentiality of users’ sensitive databases kept on cloud
servers [88]. The sharing of private information among insti-
tutions gives cause for concerns regarding unauthorized access,
data breaches, and inappropriate management of sensitive data.
In order to prevent losing users’ sensitive data due to vulner-
abilities in cloud-controlled e-learning technologies, security
precautions are unavoidable [89]. Fig. 4 presents a visual il-
lustration that underlines the concerns of privacy and security
arising from the direct exchange of local data with centralized
and shared LMS infrastructure across various educational insti-
tutions.
To protect the security and privacy of each institution’s data
within the centralized LMS, adequate safeguards must be put
in place. This comprises strong authentication mechanisms,
encryption methods, access restrictions, and frequent security
assessments. The use of a multi-layered security architecture
will significantly enhance the level of security inside a learn-
ing management system [90]. To reduce risks and guarantee
the confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility of shared data,
it is essential to strictly comply with data protection laws and
privacy rules. Furthermore, establishing clear criteria for data
sharing, anonymization of sensitive information, and seeking
informed permission from participating institutions may help
to safeguard privacy and develop trust among institutions. To
effectively address and mitigate privacy and security concerns
within the centralized shared infrastructure, it is imperative to
implement continuous monitoring and proactive security mea-
sures.
9
5. Integration of Federated Learning for Privacy and Secu-
rity Preservation in the Central Shared LMS
To protect the privacy and security of all institutions employ-
ing the cloud-based LMS, we propose implementing federated
learning on the central server and participants of the system.
Here, federated learning acts as a distributed strategy for train-
ing machine learning models, guaranteeing that raw data stays
on the local servers of each institution while allowing for col-
laborative model development. Based on the research of H.
Wang et al. [91], federated learning allows edge devices to
learn about a shared model collectively while keeping training
data on individual devices. Each educational institution in this
implementation uses its own data to train a local model, using
its institutional resources and distinct datasets. Rather than ex-
changing data and resources directly, all of the participating in-
stitutions securely transmit trained models generated from their
local data to the LMS’s central server. Without having access
to the raw data directly from the clients, the central server com-
bines these trained models to build an aggregated version of the
model. Researchers demonstrate that federated learning facili-
tates the simultaneous training of models across several distant
clients by using a centralized server [92]. The federated learn-
ing framework of the central server then aggregates the trained
models received from each educational institution to generate
an updated version of the model that incorporates the collec-
tive knowledge of all participants. Then the revised model is
subsequently distributed among the participant institutions in
a secure manner, thereby safeguarding the confidentiality and
integrity of the data belonging to each respective institution
throughout the entirety of the procedure. By operating in this
manner, federated learning assures the protection of data pri-
vacy and security. Fig. 5 depicts an architectural overview of
the proposed implementation of federated learning within the
central server and clients of the cloud-based centralized LMS
to protect the data privacy and security of multiple higher edu-
cational institutions.
Fig. 6 illustrates an overview of the central server in the sys-
tem, which relies on a federated learning framework in conjunc-
tion with the participants of the proposed architecture. From
various research studies, it is known that federated learning is
an approach that enables the execution of learning processes
using data that is distributed among numerous clients [93].
By adopting this framework, the direct exchange of data, fea-
tures, or updates is avoided. Instead, institutions only share
the trained model parameters which include the information
learned from their own datasets and resources. This strategy
reduces the possibility of sensitive information being exposed
while allowing for collaborative learning. Based upon X. Lu
et al. [94], federated learning enables numerous edge nodes to
attain enhanced efficiency in federated learning while maintain-
ing the privacy of their personal data.
O. Spirin et al. [95] claim that the selection of a cloud-
oriented learning management system for a higher education
institution involves considering several criteria and indicators.
These consist of design, technical capabilities, communication
features, and information-didactic criteria. Fig. 7 represents the
 Figure 5: Architectural overview of deploying federated learning in cloud-based centralized LMS for multiple participant institutions.
Figure 6: Central server overview of the system which utilizes a federated learn-
ing framework.
Figure 7: Necessary components and requirements for integrating federated
learning in cloud-based centralized LMS for multiple higher educational insti-
tutions.
necessary components and requirements for integrating feder-
ated learning into the central server and participant institutions
of the cloud-based centralized LMS ensuring the data privacy
and security of all higher education institutions.
In general, the necessary components and requirements show
the manner in which the cloud-oriented central server of the
10
LMS enables federated learning. This suggested approach en-
ables institutions to collectively train a shared model. The pro-
posed architectural design utilizes cloud infrastructure, secure
communication channels, privacy-preserving techniques, and
federated learning frameworks to establish an agile and reli-
able framework for collaborative learning within the academic
community.
The implementation of this suggested approach within the
central server and participants of the cloud-operated LMS offers
numerous benefits. Higher educational institutions can utilize
the combined knowledge of various datasets while maintaining
the privacy of their data. The decentralized nature of federated
learning guarantees the preservation of data ownership and con-
trol for each participating institution. Indeed, the amalgamation
of federated learning principles and the LMS platforms repre-
sents a proactive and sophisticated approach to addressing the
crucial issues of data privacy and security within the context
of contemporary educational systems. Ultimately, this whole
system we propose empowers higher educational institutions to
embrace modern technology, safeguard privacy, and fortify ed-
ucational outcomes within a collaborative environment.
6. Conclusion
This research offers a valuable contribution through the in-
clusion of federated learning and blended learning in the do-
main of educational technology, therefore addressing the chal-
lenge of balancing data privacy and facilitating effective fea-
tures, models, and updates dissemination. The presented archi-
tectural design incorporates federated learning into a central-
ized learning management system, facilitating data exchange
while maintaining the confidentiality of institutional informa-
tion. It ensures privacy protection for individual institutions
and improves the overall learning experience by leveraging col-
lective knowledge. Nevertheless, it is essential to understand
specific constraints. Furthermore, it helps to create a collabora-
tive learning environment that effectively integrates the advan-
tages of federated learning and blended learning. One of the
inherent limitations of this study is the necessity of thorough
feasibility testing and scalability assessments. An additional
limitation could potentially be discerned within the suggested
framework since it necessitates a specific degree of technolog-
ical preparedness within educational institutions. Therefore, in
order to effectively execute the structure, it may be necessary to
make adaptations that account for the diverse infrastructural ca-
pacities of different institutions. Further study is recommended
to validate the system in various educational situations empiri-
cally. The investigation of improving the process of model ag-
gregation and the development of robust security procedures
has the potential to boost the implementation of this approach.
Furthermore, investigating the effects of integrating federated
learning into an LMS on learning outcomes and student engage-
ment may provide valuable insights. In conclusion, it delineates
a trajectory for the emerging domain of educational technology
by effectively integrating data privacy considerations with the
aims of collaborative learning. This signifies the capability of
federated learning to protect data integrity, hence transforming
blended learning in the future.
References
[1] H. Ludwig, N. Baracaldo, Introduction to federated learning, in: Feder-
ated Learning: A Comprehensive Overview of Methods and Applications,
Springer, 2022, pp. 1–23.
[2] C. Fachola, A. Tornarı́a, P. Bermolen, G. Capdehourat, L. Etcheverry,
M. I. Fariello, Federated learning for data analytics in education, Data 8
(2023) 43.
[3] S. Ji, T. Saravirta, S. Pan, G. Long, A. Walid, Emerging trends in feder-
ated learning: From model fusion to federated x learning, arXiv preprint
arXiv:2102.12920 (2021).
[4] Q. Xia, W. Ye, Z. Tao, J. Wu, Q. Li, A survey of federated learning
for edge computing: Research problems and solutions, High-Confidence
Computing 1 (2021) 100008.
[5] C. J. Bonk, C. R. Graham, The handbook of blended learning: Global
perspectives, local designs, John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
[6] M. Yaman, D. Graf, Evaluation of an international blended learning co-
operation project in biology teacher education., Turkish Online Journal
of Educational Technology-TOJET 9 (2010) 87–96.
[7] J. Xu, B. S. Glicksberg, C. Su, P. Walker, J. Bian, F. Wang, Federated
learning for healthcare informatics, Journal of Healthcare Informatics
Research 5 (2021) 1–19.
[8] P. Hill, The rationale for learning communities and learning community
models. (1985).
[9] D. Rehak, P. Dodds, L. Lannom, A model and infrastructure for fed-
erated learning content repositories, in: Interoperability of web-based
educational systems workshop, volume 143, Citeseer, 2005.
[10] B. McMahan, D. Ramage, Federated learning: Collabo-
rative machine learning without centralized training data,
2017. URL: https://blog.research.google/2017/04/
federated-learning-collaborative.html?m=1, accessed:
19-09-2023.
[11] S. AbdulRahman, H. Tout, H. Ould-Slimane, A. Mourad, C. Talhi,
M. Guizani, A survey on federated learning: The journey from central-
ized to distributed on-site learning and beyond, IEEE Internet of Things
Journal 8 (2020) 5476–5497.
[12] P. M. Mammen, Federated learning: Opportunities and challenges, arXiv
preprint arXiv:2101.05428 (2021).
[13] S. Truex, N. Baracaldo, A. Anwar, T. Steinke, H. Ludwig, R. Zhang,
Y. Zhou, A hybrid approach to privacy-preserving federated learning,
in: Proceedings of the 12th ACM workshop on artificial intelligence and
security, 2019, pp. 1–11.
[14] S. Niknam, H. S. Dhillon, J. H. Reed, Federated learning for wireless
communications: Motivation, opportunities, and challenges, IEEE Com-
munications Magazine 58 (2020) 46–51.
11
[15] L. Li, Y. Fan, M. Tse, K.-Y. Lin, A review of applications in federated
learning, Computers & Industrial Engineering 149 (2020) 106854.
[16] P. Kairouz, H. B. McMahan, B. Avent, A. Bellet, M. Bennis, A. N.
Bhagoji, K. Bonawitz, Z. Charles, G. Cormode, R. Cummings, et al.,
Advances and open problems in federated learning, Foundations and
Trends® in Machine Learning 14 (2021) 1–210.
[17] Q. Li, Z. Wen, Z. Wu, S. Hu, N. Wang, Y. Li, X. Liu, B. He, A survey
on federated learning systems: Vision, hype and reality for data privacy
and protection, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
(2021).
[18] M. Aledhari, R. Razzak, R. M. Parizi, F. Saeed, Federated learning: A
survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications, IEEE Ac-
cess 8 (2020) 140699–140725.
[19] K. Bonawitz, H. Eichner, W. Grieskamp, D. Huba, A. Ingerman,
V. Ivanov, C. Kiddon, J. Konečnỳ, S. Mazzocchi, B. McMahan, et al.,
Towards federated learning at scale: System design, Proceedings of ma-
chine learning and systems 1 (2019) 374–388.
[20] M. Ghassemi, T. Naumann, P. Schulam, A. L. Beam, I. Y. Chen, R. Ran-
ganath, A review of challenges and opportunities in machine learning
for health, AMIA Summits on Translational Science Proceedings 2020
(2020) 191.
[21] G. Szegedi, P. Kiss, T. Horváth, Evolutionary federated learning on eeg-
data., in: ITAT, 2019, pp. 71–78.
[22] K. Tan, D. Bremner, J. Le Kernec, M. Imran, Federated machine learning
in vehicular networks: A summary of recent applications, in: 2020 inter-
national conference on UK-China emerging technologies (UCET), IEEE,
2020, pp. 1–4.
[23] Y. Liu, J. James, J. Kang, D. Niyato, S. Zhang, Privacy-preserving traffic
flow prediction: A federated learning approach, IEEE Internet of Things
Journal 7 (2020) 7751–7763.
[24] X. Wang, Y. Han, C. Wang, Q. Zhao, X. Chen, M. Chen, In-edge ai:
Intelligentizing mobile edge computing, caching and communication by
federated learning, Ieee Network 33 (2019) 156–165.
[25] Y. Qian, L. Hu, J. Chen, X. Guan, M. M. Hassan, A. Alelaiwi, Privacy-
aware service placement for mobile edge computing via federated learn-
ing, Information Sciences 505 (2019) 562–570.
[26] Y. Cheng, Y. Liu, T. Chen, Q. Yang, Federated learning for privacy-
preserving ai, Communications of the ACM 63 (2020) 33–36.
[27] B. Hu, Y. Gao, L. Liu, H. Ma, Federated region-learning: An edge com-
puting based framework for urban environment sensing, in: 2018 ieee
global communications conference (globecom), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–7.
[28] X. Han, H. Yu, H. Gu, Visual inspection with federated learning, in:
Image Analysis and Recognition: 16th International Conference, ICIAR
2019, Waterloo, ON, Canada, August 27–29, 2019, Proceedings, Part II
16, Springer, 2019, pp. 52–64.
[29] E. Stacey, P. Gerbic, Teaching for blended learning: How is ict impact-
ing on distance and on campus education?, in: IFIP World Computer
Congress, TC 3, Springer, 2006, pp. 225–234.
[30] D. R. Garrison, H. Kanuka, Blended learning: Uncovering its transfor-
mative potential in higher education, The internet and higher education 7
(2004) 95–105.
[31] K. Thorne, Blended learning: how to integrate online & traditional learn-
ing, Kogan Page Publishers, 2003.
[32] M. Cleveland-Innes, D. Wilton, Guide to blended learning (2018).
[33] W. D. Dwiyogo, Developing a blended learning-based method for
problem-solving in capability learning., Turkish Online Journal of Ed-
ucational Technology-TOJET 17 (2018) 51–61.
[34] M. B. Horn, H. Staker, Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve
schools, John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
[35] R. Bleed, A hybrid campus for the new millennium, Educause Review
36 (2001) 16–25.
[36] J. Singh, K. Steele, L. Singh, 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 Sys-
tems 50 (2021) 140–171.
[37] B. Collis, E-learning and the transformation of education for a knowledge
economy, The Network Society From Knowledge to Policy (2005) 215.
[38] J. C. Evans, H. Yip, K. Chan, C. Armatas, A. Tse, Blended learning in
higher education: professional development in a hong kong university,
Higher Education Research & Development 39 (2020) 643–656.
[39] V. Diaz, M. Brown, Blended learning: A report on the eli focus session,
 EDUCAUSE learning initiative (2010).
[40] A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, C. R. Graham, Blended learning: Re-
search perspectives, volume 2 (2013).
[41] D. Laurillard, Thinking about blended learning, December: A paper
for the Thinkers in Residence programme. Royal Flemish Academy of
Belgium for Science and the Arts (2014).
[42] R. M. Bernard, E. Borokhovski, R. F. Schmid, R. M. Tamim, P. C.
Abrami, 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 (2014) 87–122.
[43] J. Hewitt, How habitual online practices affect the development of asyn-
chronous discussion threads, Journal of Educational computing research
28 (2003) 31–45.
[44] L. A. Sutton, The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated
communications, International Journal of Educational Telecommunica-
tions 7 (2001) 223–242.
[45] C. Dziuban, C. R. Graham, P. D. Moskal, A. Norberg, N. Sicilia, Blended
learning: the new normal and emerging technologies, International jour-
nal of educational technology in Higher education 15 (2018) 1–16.
[46] S. Hancock, T. Wong, Blended learning, Retrieved July 31 (2012) 2012.
[47] D. Bath, J. Bourke, The blending of blended learning: An experiential
approach to academic staff development, in: ASCILITE, 2011, pp. 4–7.
[48] C. P. Lim, L. Wang, Blended learning for quality higher education:
Selected case studies on implementation from Asia-Pacific, UNESCO
Bangkok Office, 2016.
[49] M. Protsiv, S. Atkins, A. consortium, The experiences of lecturers
in african, asian and european universities in preparing and delivering
blended health research methods courses: a qualitative study, Global
Health Action 9 (2016) 28149.
[50] U. V. Krismadinata, N. Jalinus, F. Rizal, P. S. Sukardi, D. Ramadhani,
A. L. Lubis, J. Friadi, A. S. R. Arifin, D. Novaliendry, Blended learning as
instructional model in vocational education: literature review, Universal
Journal of Educational Research 8 (2020) 5801–5815.
[51] B. Garner, L. Oke, Blended learning: Theoretical foundations. marion:
Indiana wesleyan university, 2014.
[52] J. Watson, Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-
face education. promising practices in online learning., North American
Council for Online Learning (2008).
[53] S. Patrick, C. Sturgis, Maximizing competency education and blended
learning: Insights from experts. competencyworks issue brief., Interna-
tional Association for K-12 Online Learning (2015).
[54] V. Boyd, A. Sampson, Foundation versus innovation: developing cre-
ative education practitioner confidence in the complex blended learning
landscape, Professional Development in Education 42 (2016) 502–506.
[55] G. Saliba, L. Rankine, H. Cortez, Fundamentals of blended learning,
Sydney: University of Western Sydney (2013).
[56] V. Caravias, Teachers conceptions and approaches to blended learning: A
literature review, Online course management: Concepts, methodologies,
tools, and applications (2018) 912–934.
[57] M. Kaur, Blended learning-its challenges and future, Procedia-social and
behavioral sciences 93 (2013) 612–617.
[58] C. R. Graham, Emerging practice and research in blended learning, Hand-
book of distance education 3 (2013) 333–350.
[59] C. M. Christensen, M. B. Horn, H. Staker, Is k-12 blended learning dis-
ruptive, An introduction to the theory of hybrids 4 (2013).
[60] C. R. Graham, Blended learning models, in: Encyclopedia of Information
Science and Technology, Second Edition, IGI Global, 2009, pp. 375–382.
[61] A. O’Connell, Seven blended learning models used today in higher ed,
2016.
[62] A. Alammary, J. Sheard, A. Carbone, Blended learning in higher educa-
tion: Three different design approaches, Australasian Journal of Educa-
tional Technology 30 (2014).
[63] Z. Zainuddin, C. M. Keumala, Blended learning method within indone-
sian higher education institutions, Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora 6 (2018)
69–77.
[64] A. Bacher-Hicks, J. Goodman, C. Mulhern, Inequality in household adap-
tation to schooling shocks: Covid-induced online learning engagement in
real time, Journal of Public Economics 193 (2021) 104345.
[65] A. De Giusti, Book review: Policy brief: Education during covid-19
and beyond, Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologı́a En Educación y Edu-
cación En Tecnologı́a (2020) 110–111.
12
[66] S. Giannini, Covid-19 causes biggest disruption of education system in
history, 2020.
[67] V. Ratten, The post covid-19 pandemic era: Changes in teaching and
learning methods for management educators, The International Journal
of Management Education 21 (2023) 100777.
[68] M. T. Costado Dios, J. C. Piñero Charlo, Face-to-face vs. e-learning mod-
els in the covid-19 era: Survey research in a spanish university, Education
Sciences 11 (2021) 293.
[69] T. Power, A. Buckler, M. Ebubedike, M. Tengenesha, M. Jama,
A. Ndlovu, J. Mukoyi, M. Ndou, S. Mubaira, Community help for in-
clusive learning and development (child): A study of how mobile phones
were used to recruit and equip community volunteers to support children’s
learning during covid-19 school closures in zimbabwe. (2021).
[70] P. Sepulveda-Escobar, A. Morrison, Online teaching placement during
the covid-19 pandemic in chile: challenges and opportunities, European
Journal of Teacher Education 43 (2020) 587–607.
[71] S. Widodo, Y. Wibowo, W. Wagiran, Online learning readiness during the
covid-19 pandemic, in: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, volume
1700, IOP Publishing, 2020, p. 012033.
[72] A. Fidian, Z. B. Pambuko, L. Muliawanti, F. Yuliastuti, Online learning
during the covid-19 pandemic: Opportunities and challenges, in: Pro-
ceedings of the 2nd Borobudur International Symposium on Humanities
and Social Sciences, BIS-HSS 2020, 18 November 2020, Magelang, Cen-
tral Java, Indonesia, 2021.
[73] I. Karma, I. K. Darma, I. Santiana, Blended learning is an educational
innovation and solution during the covid-19 pandemic, International re-
search journal of engineering, IT & scientific research (2021).
[74] M. M. C. Shohel, M. Ashrafuzzaman, M. T. Islam, S. Shams, A. Mah-
mud, Blended teaching and learning in higher education: Challenges
and opportunities, Handbook of research on developing a post-pandemic
paradigm for virtual technologies in higher education (2021) 27–50.
[75] K. Gorgen, T. McAleavy, Report for edtech hub (2020).
[76] G. Naveh, D. Tubin, N. Pliskin, Student lms use and satisfaction in
academic institutions: The organizational perspective, The internet and
higher education 13 (2010) 127–133.
[77] C. Cobos, M. Niño, M. Mendoza, R. Fabregat, L. Gomez, Learning man-
agement system based on scorm, agents and mining, in: Web Information
Systems Engineering–WISE 2007: 8th International Conference on Web
Information Systems Engineering Nancy, France, December 3-7, 2007
Proceedings 8, Springer, 2007, pp. 298–309.
[78] B. Bhattacharya, A. Chaubey, Learning management system in higher
education, IJSTE Int. J. Sci. Technol. Enginering 2 (2019) 29–51.
[79] A. B. Ustun, F. G. Karaoglan Yilmaz, R. Yilmaz, Investigating the role
of accepting learning management system on students’ engagement and
sense of community in blended learning, Education and Information
Technologies 26 (2021) 4751–4769.
[80] D. Turnbull, R. Chugh, J. Luck, An overview of the common elements
of learning management system policies in higher education institutions,
TechTrends 66 (2022) 855–867.
[81] M. Rahman, M. Daud, N. Ensimau, Learning management system (lms)
in teaching and learning, International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences 9 (2019) 1529–1535.
[82] A. Scerbakov, M. Ebner, N. Scerbakov, Using cloud services in a mod-
ern learning management system, Journal of computing and information
technology 23 (2015) 75–86.
[83] G. Riahi, E-learning systems based on cloud computing: A review, Pro-
cedia Computer Science 62 (2015) 352–359.
[84] N. Angelova, G. Kiryakova, L. Yordanova, Cloud-based lms for e-
learning (2015).
[85] H. F. Aldheleai, M. U. Bokhari, A. Alammari, Overview of cloud-based
learning management system, International Journal of Computer Appli-
cations 162 (2017).
[86] M. Yang, X. Zhang, The research of resource sharing platform for univer-
sities using virtual database, in: 2014 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Re-
search and Technology in Industry Applications (WARTIA), IEEE, 2014,
pp. 690–693.
[87] M. Durairaj, A. Manimaran, A study on security issues in cloud based
e-learning, Indian Journal of Science and Technology 8 (2015) 757–765.
[88] G. S. Reddy, Security issues and threats in educational clouds of e-
learning: a review on security measures, International Journal of Com-
puter Technology and Applications 4 (2013) 312.
[89] M. A. H. Masud, M. R. Islam, J. Abawajy, Security concerns and remedy
in a cloud based e-learning system, in: Security and Privacy in Com-
munication Networks: 9th International ICST Conference, SecureComm
2013, Sydney, NSW, Australia, September 25-28, 2013, Revised Selected
Papers 9, Springer, 2013, pp. 356–366.
[90] M. Khan, T. Naz, M. A. H. Medani, A multi-layered security model for
learning management system, International Journal of Advanced Com-
puter Science and Applications 10 (2019).
[91] H. Wang, M. Yurochkin, Y. Sun, D. Papailiopoulos, Y. Khazaeni, Feder-
ated learning with matched averaging, arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06440
(2020).
[92] H. G. Abreha, M. Hayajneh, M. A. Serhani, Federated learning in edge
computing: a systematic survey, Sensors 22 (2022) 450.
[93] R. Fantacci, B. Picano, Federated learning framework for mobile edge
computing networks, CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology 5
(2020) 15–21.
[94] X. Lu, Y. Liao, P. Lio, P. Hui, Privacy-preserving asynchronous federated
learning mechanism for edge network computing, IEEE Access 8 (2020)
48970–48981.
[95] O. Spirin, T. Vakaliuk, V. Ievdokymov, S. Sydorenko, Criteria for se-
lecting a cloud-based learning management system for a higher education
institution, Information Technologies and Learning Tools 3 (2022) 105–
120.

13