An Analysis Of Research Trends In Dissertations And Theses Studying Blended Learning

An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning
Jeffery S. Drysdale ⁎, Charles R. Graham, Kristian J. Spring, Lisa R. Halverson
Department of Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Accepted 15 November 2012
Available online 23 November 2012
Keywords:
Blended learning
Hybrid learning
Research
Scholarship
Graduate student research
This article analyzes the research of 205 doctoral dissertations and masters' theses in the domain of blended
learning. A summary of trends regarding the growth and context of blended learning research is presented.
Methodological trends are described in terms of qualitative, inferential statistics, descriptive statistics, and
combined approaches to data analysis. Research topics are divided into nine topics (learner outcomes, dispo-
sitions, instructional design, interaction, comparison, demographics, technology, professional development,
and other), each containing several sub-topics. Patterns in these topics are analyzed to identify gaps in
research and to highlight opportunities for future research as the field of blended learning continues to grow.
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction
Thousands of corporate training programs, institutions of higher ed-
ucation, and K-12 schools participate in blended learning (Picciano,
Seaman, Shea, & Swan, 2012; Staker et al., 2011). Nearly half of
four-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions and two thirds
of two-year institutions in the U.S. were reported as offering “hybrid/
blended online learning” courses in 2007 (Parsad & Lewis, 2008). Blend-
ed learning is also known to be on the rise in Australia (Eklund, Kay, &
Lynch, 2003), Canada (Collaboration for Online Higher Education
Research, 2011), and the UK (Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts, & Francis,
2006). Blended learning—in its simplest form, the thoughtful integra-
tion of online and face-to-face-instruction (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004;
Graham, 2006, 2013)—is being used with increased frequency around
the world.
Concurrent with this rise in implementation, research on blended
learning has increased over the past decade, with much of the seminal
work occurring in higher education contexts (Halverson, Graham,
Spring, & Drysdale, 2012). An analysis of dissertations and theses can
provide a window into the state of research in a particular domain
and can be a powerful tool for understanding trends in theory develop-
ment, methods, themes, and gaps within the domain (Davies, Howell, &
Petrie, 2010).
In this article we identify and analyze over 200 theses and disserta-
tions written in the past decade in the domain of blended learning. Our
analysis documents the growth of blended learning research and iden-
tifies demographic, methodological, and topical trends in that body of
research.
2. Literature review
Over the past decade there have been many attempts to define
blended learning (Graham, 2013; Mayadas & Picciano, 2007; Oliver &
Trigwell, 2005; Picciano & Seaman, 2009; Vaughan, 2007). Graham
(2013) reviewed the various definitions with their strengths and limita-
tions. Additionally, Graham examined the literature related to learning
effectiveness, learner satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, access and flexi-
bility, and cost effectiveness. Graham identified the need for more
theoretically grounded research. He also outlined opportunities for
research exploring the link between satisfaction data and specific
blended learning methods, accessibility, opportunity costs, cost effec-
tiveness, and psycho-social relationships.
Other efforts have recently been made to assess the state of blended
learning research. Halverson et al. (2012) sought to identify the most
impactful scholarship and research in blended learning. This study iden-
tified the top 50 articles, 25 edited book chapters, 10 books, and 15
non-academic publications ranked by citation count. These seminal
works indicate where the conversations on blended learning research
are taking place. However, dissertations and theses related to blended
learning were not considered part of that analysis.
Additional actions to synthesize the results of Blended Learning
research have also been undertaken. A meta-analysis conducted by
the U.S. Department of Education reviewed 99 studies on online or
blended learning (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009).
Dissertations were included as part of the initial search, but most did
not include enough data to calculate effect size and therefore did not
meet the criteria for inclusion. Researchers found that students partici-
pating in online or blended instruction produced stronger learning
outcomes than those that participated only in face-to-face instruction
with a mean effect size of s +0.20, pb.001. Only five instances of K12
instruction qualified for the analysis, leaving a need for further study
on the subject.
Internet and Higher Education 17 (2013) 90–100
⁎ Corresponding author at: Brigham Young University, 150 MCKB, Provo, UT 84602,
USA. Tel.: +1 801 709 4982.
E-mail address: jeff.drysdale@byu.edu (J.S. Drysdale).
1096-7516/$ – see front matter © 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.003
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Internet and Higher Education

An understanding of trends in dissertation research can show what
issues, theories, and methodologies young researchers and their faculty
mentors are interested in. In 2010, Davies et al. evaluated the general
state of distance education research among research universities in
North America by analyzing dissertation trends in research topics,
research designs, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
They argued that:
…new scholars typically learn to conduct research in graduate
school as they complete thesis and dissertation projects. For this
reason, an analysis of research topics and methods in graduate
schools promises to provide an important perspective and update
on the state of research in the field. (p. 44)
Davies et al. (2010) also expressed concern that little work was
being done to develop the theoretical foundation of distance educa-
tion. While distance education and blended learning are referred to
by some as cousins, blended learning environments offer different
affordances that allow for different kinds of instructional activities
to take place. We believe that reviewing graduate research about
blended learning will give us insight into the state—and future—of
research related to blended learning.
To our knowledge there has not yet been an analysis of research
trends among doctoral dissertations and masters' theses that focus on
blended learning. This study begins to fill that gap.
3. Methodology
We surveyed all theses and dissertations found on the ProQuest
Dissertation and Thesis Database (ProQuest) that addressed blended
learning. Once we compiled the manuscripts, we analyzed their demo-
graphic, methodological, and topical trends. The following questions
were used to explore these trends:
Demographic trends:
(1) How has the number of blended learning theses and disserta-
tions changed over the past decade?
(2) In what contexts (higher education, K-12, or corporate) is the
blended learning research occurring?
(3) At what organizational level—institution, program, course, or
activity—are the blends taking place?
Methodological trends:
(1) What data analysis techniques are most commonly used in
BL research?
Topical trends:
(1) What theories are used to frame research in blended learning?
(2) What is the range and frequency of topics being explored in
blended learning research?
3.1. Manuscript selection
For this review, we collected all pertinent doctoral dissertations and
masters' theses written through 2011 and submitted to ProQuest on or
before April 3, 2012. We selected ProQuest because it receives 97.2% of
all dissertations and theses from research universities in the United
States and 87.2% of those from Canadian research universities (Davies
et al., 2010).
Employing terms accepted in the literature on blended learning
(Graham, 2006), we searched for manuscripts containing blend*, hybrid,
or mixed mode in the title or abstract, while limiting our search to man-
uscripts that were full-text and written in English. We further refined
our search using Boolean operators to connect blend*, hybrid, and
mixed mode with educational terms (such as learning, environment,
approach, method, instruction, course, program, and class) to create
phrases pertinent to blended learning. Our final search resulted in 263
manuscripts. Each manuscript was reviewed by two researchers to
determine that blended learning was studied, not simply mentioned.
An independent third rater negotiated any discrepancies in determin-
ing relevancy. Of the 263 manuscripts, 205 were deemed relevant to
our study.
3.2. Manuscript categorizing and coding
Two researchers categorized demographics and methodological
trends, and then open-coded topical trends (research questions and the-
oretical frameworks).
3.2.1. Categories for demographic trends
We divided studies into demographic categories according to learn-
er type and organizational level (see Table 1). Learner type identified
where the research was conducted: K-12, higher education, or corpo-
rate settings. Organizational level categories identified the level on
which the studied blend took place: institution, program, course, or ac-
tivity (Graham, 2006).
3.2.2. Categories for methodological trends
We next categorized documents according to the methods used in
each study: inferential statistics, descriptive statistics, qualitative, and
combined data analysis methodologies (see Table 2), coding only meth-
odologies that contributed significantly to the analyses and conclusions
of the research. To verify coding reliability, 25% of the manuscripts were
blind coded—coded independently by two researchers. We selected
Cohen's kappa as our measure of inter-rater reliability because it takes
into account chance agreement (Strijbos, Martens, Prins, & Jochems,
2006). After double coding 54 manuscripts, a Cohen's kappa of .816 was
achieved which is considered in the top category for inter-rater reliability
according to the benchmarks established by Landis and Koch (1977).
3.2.3. Coding for topical trends
All research questions were extracted from the manuscripts to deter-
mine topical trends. We adapted a pattern established by Emerson, Fretz,
and Shaw (1995) to open code the extracted questions. Round one of cod-
ing attempted to capture the breadth of ideas and themes addressed in
the research questions without regard to pre-selected topics. In round
two we analyzed the topics for similarities and grouped them into slightly
broader categories. In the final round we consolidated the categories into
groups that were distinct and informative.
3.2.4. Coding for theoretical frameworks
Theoretical frameworks were extracted if the researcher sought to
prove, disprove, or build on a particular theory. Frameworks that
were merely cited to provide background or context were not
counted.
4. Findings and discussion
Graduate research on blended learning has increased steadily
since 2001 (see Fig. 1). Recognizing and understanding the trends in
this growing body of research are important for at least two key rea-
sons. First, knowing the trends in blended learning research can help
researchers better frame their own investigations. Second, under-
standing those trends gives insights into where there are gaps in
the existing knowledge base which can be explored. In this section
we will discuss the demographic trends, methodological trends, and
topical trends of graduate research on blended learning.
91
J.S. Drysdale et al. / Internet and Higher Education 17 (2013) 90–100

4.1. Demographic trends
4.1.1. Learner type
Seventy-seven percent of the blended learning dissertations and
theses were conducted in higher education contexts, more than all
other contexts combined (see Fig. 2). Only 13% of the manuscripts
focused on a corporate context. Since one observer claimed that by
2001 blended learning was “all pervasive in the training industry”
(Reay, 2001), we believe that this shortage in corporate research is
indicative of the limited access graduate researchers have to corpora-
tions rather than an indication of limited corporate implementation.
Additionally, research on corporate blended learning is more likely to
be published in white papers, reports, and other non-academic publica-
tions (Halverson et al., 2012). K-12 environments were only studied in
8% of the theses and dissertations, revealing a signiﬁcant gap in the
research. When organized by year, research in K-12 contexts was not
consistently present until 2008 (see Fig. 3). We see an arena wide
open for K-12 blended learning research; Picciano and Seaman (2009)
noted in their 2008 survey of U.S. K-12 administrators that 41% of
responding public school districts had students enrolled in blended
courses, and an additional 21% planned to have at least one student
enrolled in a blended course by 2011.
4.1.2. Organizational level
The majority of our manuscripts, 83%, focused on course-level
blends (see Fig. 4). We believe that this is largely due to how convenient
it is for researchers to create their own blend within the courses they
teach. Examples included combining face-to-face interactions with
online journaling, resources, and discussion (Abel, 2011), or integrating
Table 2
Data analysis.
Design Description Characteristics
Inferential
statistics
Used inferential statistics. Experiment; causal, correlation; ANOVA; Chi-Square; t-test; p-value.
Descriptive
statistics
Used descriptive statistics independent of inferential statistics. Mean; median; standard deviation.
Qualitative Used interpretive and descriptive qualitative analysis. Case study; naturalistic inquiry; interview; focus group; open-ended
survey; quote; phenomenology; ethnography; interpretative lens.
Combined Multiple approaches to analysis; only when both approaches inﬂuenced conclusions.
Because Descriptive statistics are a prerequisite to Inferential statistics, “Descriptive”
and “Inferential” categories are not combined.
Table 1
Learner type and organizational level.
Category Description Example
Learner type
K-12 Participants are K-12 students. Elementary, middle, and high schools.
Higher education Participants are higher education students. University, community college, and graduate studies.
Corporate Participants are professionals. Businesses and military.
Organizational level
Institution Blending occurs at an institutional level. Some institutions offer students both online and F2F experiences.
Program Blending occurs at a program level. Similar to institution but within a major or college; voluntary or required.
Course Blending occurs at a course level. Some of the class meetings occur F2F while others occur online.
Activity Blending occurs at an activity level. Discussion that begins in class then moves to an online discussion board.
Fig. 1. Number of theses and dissertations published by year. *2011 data is as of 3 April, 2012. Some theses and dissertations are not included because of a delay in publication.
92 J.S. Drysdale et al. / Internet and Higher Education 17 (2013) 90–100

distance students into a synchronous online blended learning environ-
ment with an instructor and face-to-face students (Rasmussen, 2003).
Ten percent of the research focused on program and institution level
blending. The lack of research on these levels may be due to the extensive
planning and coordination necessary for program or institution-wide
blends, requiring the approval of administrative stakeholders with
significant vested interests. Such planning and coordination may
contribute to slowing implementation and subsequently slower
research. However, studies show that blended learning instruction
is fully adaptable to the program or institutional needs and does
not need to be complicated. For example, one study examined a
Master's degree program that found a suitable blend: 80% of their
courses were offered online, but students were required to complete
at least one lab or field-based campus course and to present capstone
projects in a face-to-face setting (Mike, 2010). The purpose of this
blend was to create flexibility for students, the majority of whom were
practicing science teachers. Only one of our manuscripts focused on an
institution-level blend. Maverick High School, a charter school in Florida,
featured an institutional blend with a “self-paced, technology-enhanced,
blended learning environment designed to meet the needs of at-risk
students” (Cunningham, 2011, p. 50).
Three percent of our documents studied activity-level blending. How-
ever this amount of research may not accurately reflect the amount of
blending occurring at the activity level. Since individual activities are
less likely to produce as much data as higher-level blends, such as
course- or institution-level blends, researchers may go where the data is
richest. One example of a data-rich activity-level blend arose when the
University of Toronto assigned 565 students in 2003 and 700 students
in 2004 to discuss a case study in small inter-professional teams that
collaborated both face-to-face and online (Waterston, 2006). The study
sought to identify elements that improved cooperative interaction online.
Fig. 2. Learner type. Category, number of included manuscripts, percent of included
manuscripts.
Fig. 3. Learner type organized by year. *2011 data is as of 3 April, 2012. Some theses and dissertations are not included because of a delay in publication.
Fig. 4. Organizational level of the blend.
93

Data from the 2003 activity was used to make improvements for 2004,
and the data from 2004 was used to make improvements for 2005.
While utilizing face-to-face and online communication for an activity is
not abnormal, the large volume of students, combined with the
carry-over from year to year, is what provided sufficient data to make
researching this activity-level blend possible.
4.2. Methodological trends
The findings on techniques used for data analysis are presented in
Fig. 5. Inferential statistics were used as the primary method of data
analysis for 34% of our documents. The second most common approach
to data analysis, used in 26% of the documents, was a combined method
of both inferential statistics and qualitative analysis. The third most
common primary method used, at 20%, was qualitative. Even though
research on blended learning trends toward quantitative analysis, we
feel there is a strong representation of qualitative analysis as well. The
two most common methods used were inferential (123) and qualitative
(122) although there were a number of studies that combined methods
(Fig. 6).
4.3. Topical trends
Open coding of research questions yielded nine primary topics. We
divided each primary topic into detailed sub-topics based on where
the research questions naturally fit (see Table 3). Documents that
Fig. 5. Data analysis methods.
Fig. 6. Individual primary data analysis methods.

addressed more than one topic were coded for multiple topics. Since the
topics were not discrete, it was possible for percentages to add up to
more than 100%. The findings for each primary research topic are
discussed in detail in the following sections.
4.3.1. Learner outcomes
More than half of the manuscripts addressed learner outcomes,
making it the most popular research topic in this study (see Table 4).
The most investigated sub-topic was performance outcomes, which
addressed student performance as measured by factors such as course
grades, GPAs, and test scores. These are important elements of quality ed-
ucation; as Sloan-C states, the minimum quality expectation is that online
or blended learning online “should be at least as effective as learning in
other modes” (Moore, 2005, p. 2). The research we surveyed indicates
that blended learning is meeting this minimum expectation. For example,
in a study that included 741 undergraduate students, there was a statisti-
cally significant difference between the scores of the online-only students
and blended students; on a 100-point scale, the blended students scored
an average of 7.09 points higher than their online-only counterparts
(Pearcy, 2009). Moreover, Nellman (2008) measured performance for
students at an urban Southern California public high school in terms of
content-understanding and problem-solving; results indicated a signifi-
cant increase (pb.05) in a blended environment.
But learner outcomes encompass more than grades and test scores.
Thus additional research attention could be given to the sub-topics of
student engagement and motivation, as well as student satisfaction—
the latter being one of the “pillars” of the Sloan-C quality framework
(learning effectiveness, cost effectiveness and institutional commit-
ment, student satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, and access; see Moore,
2005). The subjective nature of measuring these forms of outcomes
could be a primary reason for this gap in blended learning research.
4.3.2. Dispositions
The theme of dispositions was addressed in over one third of the
documents and was the second most common research topic identi-
fied. The dispositions code included documents that addressed per-
ceptions, attitudes, preferences, expectations, and learning styles
(see Table 5). The importance of developing dispositional traits has
been widely acknowledged (Katz, 1988; Perkins, Jay, & Tishman,
1993). Halpern (1999) argued that dispositions allow learners to
“recognize when a skill is needed and [display] the willingness to
exert the mental effort needed to apply it” (p. 72). Significantly in
blended learning settings where some instruction will be face-to-
face and some computer-mediated, it has been argued that disposi-
tions “are probably learned primarily from being around people
who have them and who exhibit them” (Katz, 1988, p. 30). Thus the
Table 3
Categories with how often addressed.
Primary topic % Sub-topics
Learner outcomes 51.7% Performance outcomes, student satisfaction, engagement, effectiveness, motivation & effort, independence in learning,
and retention rates.
Dispositions 38.5% Perceptions, attitudes, preferences, student expectations, and learning styles.
Instructional design 34.6% Models, strategies & best practices; design process; implementation; environment & course structure; and evaluation tools.
Interaction 29.3% Student-to-instructor, general interaction, student-to-student, collaboration, community, and social presence.
Comparison 21.5% Blended & face-to-face and blended & online.
Demographics 14.1% Student and faculty.
Technology 13.7% Use & role, effect, type, implementation, and familiarity.
Professional development 7.3% Professional development
Other Benefits & challenges, access & availability, support system, time efficiency,
nature & role of blended learning, and international issues.
Table 5
Sub-topics of the primary topic disposition—79 manuscripts—38.0% of total manuscripts.
Sub-topic # % Example research question
Perceptions 54 26.3%
Students 38 18.5% (Yerasimou, 2010) What were learners' perceptions with respect to the learning activities, the tools, and the overall blended course?
Faculty 21 10.2% (Baglien, 2009) What is the FCS instructors'… perception about blended instruction as an effective method of instruction?
Institution 1 0.5% (Simpson, 2009) What is the importance of distance education to MSU?
Attitudes 11 5.4%
Student 9 4.4% (Newton, 2006) What attitudes and perceptions do students have in relationship to their web-based courses?
Faculty 4 2.0% (Gonzalez-Castillo, 2008) What are faculty attitudes regarding the most important benefits of hybrid courses for students?
Preferences 9 4.4%
Students 9 4.4% (Sukseemuang, 2009) What are the course design preferences of students studying in the university?
Faculty 1 0.5% (Copp, 2007) Do faculty prefer technology or face-to-face interaction for teaching and learning activities?
Student expectations 5 2.4% (McClure, 2006) What initial expectations about learning experiences do students hold for a hybrid course?
Learning styles 5 2.4% (Devlin, 2010) Do different learning styles influence student perceptions of course activities…?
Table 4
Sub-topics of the primary topic learner outcomes—106 manuscripts—51.5% of total manuscripts.
Performance outcomes 58 28.3% (Hackemann, 2010) What percentage of blended courses had higher success rates…?
Student satisfaction 18 8.8% (Houldson, 2009) Is there a statistically significant difference in learner satisfaction between those students who received
hybrid instruction and those who participated in a traditional face-to-face program?
Engagement 12 5.9% (Kraemer, 2008) What effects does the implementation of technology have regarding students' levels of engagement…?
Effectiveness 11 5.4% (Henry, 2008) In what ways does hybrid instructional delivery transform student learning?
Motivation and effort 10 4.9% (Kraemer, 2008) What effects does the implementation of technology have regarding students' levels of engagement…?
Independence in learning 10 4.9% (Ellis, 2008) What evidence of self-directedness is present in the hybrid program?
Retention rates 9 4.4% (Ruhlandt, 2010) Is there a difference in course retention between online or blended courses?
95

significance of research on the effect of blended learning on disposi-
tions is clear.
Perception was the most common sub-topic of study and generally a
positive disposition towards blended learning was found. In a survey of
163 undergraduate students (Olson, 2003), the majority of students
said they preferred blended classes to traditional face-to-face classes.
The students' most common reasons included their “ability to complete
coursework at their own convenience, the increased time for other
activities, not having to physically meet all the time, the increased inter-
action with others, and the freedom that goes along with hybrid classes”
(Olson, 2003, p 61). Students also indicated that their learning experi-
ence was enhanced by “the increase in the amount and promptness of
feedback between students and between students and the instructor”
(Olson, 2003, p. 61). Another study noted that students preferred blend-
ed classes compared to traditional classes in the following areas: “(a)
accessibility and availability of course materials; (b) use of web-based
or electronic tools for communication and collaboration; (c) assessment
and evaluation; and (d) student learning experiences with real-life ap-
plications” (Arano-Ocuaman, 2010, p. iv). Overall, student preferences
indicated a positive disposition towards blended learning, while faculty
dispositions remain under-researched. One of the gaps in this area of re-
search was illustrated by the fact that for every sub-topic, more empha-
sis was placed on students than on faculty.
4.3.3. Instructional design
One third of the manuscripts addressed matters related to instruction-
al design, including subtopics such as design process, implementation,
and course structure (see Table 6). The sub-topic Models, strategies, and
best practices was most researched at 38 times—an understandable
emphasis for a burgeoning field which often requires instructional design
innovation beyond the expertise of the traditional instructors. Best
practices cited by Wang (2009) include the need for a blended course
to be fast-paced, convenient, and flexible; present a thorough curriculum;
utilize practical examples; and involve teachers who are responsive to
student questions. Willekens (2009) identified the need for maintaining
communication between instructors and students, online peer feedback,
and online discussion boards. Manning (2010) generated a list of 14
best practices of instruction in a blended course, which included creating
hands-on experiences, incorporating a variety of assignments, being
present and available for the students, facilitating student interaction
with the content, actively involving the students, and providing prompt
feedback when needed.
Still, an awareness of best practices does not necessarily provide a
blueprint for how to establish a blended course or program in every
setting. Therefore institutions have struggled to conceptualize and
implement an optimal blend of face-to-face and computer-mediated
instruction (Dziuban, Hartman, Cavanagh, & Moskal, 2011). Additional
research on design subtopics such as implementation, evaluation, and
environment could be beneficial.
4.3.4. Interaction
Almost one-third of our documents addressed interaction in some
manner, although no single sub-topic within interaction received an over-
whelming amount of research (see Table 7). Moore (1989) identified
three types of interaction important in distance and blended learning con-
texts: learner–learner, learner–content, and learner–instructor. We found
a blatant gap in the research as no studies focused on learner–content in-
teraction, which Moore termed “a defining characteristic of education.
Without it there cannot be education” (1989, p. 2). Additionally, no re-
search addressed student–parent interaction, an important facet of K-12
blended learning (Borup, West, Graham, & Davies, in review). With inter-
action taking place on so many different levels, we see much need and op-
portunity for continued research in this area.
4.3.5. Comparison
More than 1 in 5 studies compared blended to face-to-face or online
learning (see Table 8). At issue are the same concerns that have energized
the media-method debates (Clark, 1994; Kozma, 1994): are instructional
methods or particular media more important for effective learning?
Research topics included areas such as the comparison of student
characteristics (Ayala, 2007), classroom environments (Comey,
2009), retention rates (Davis, 2007), effectiveness of collaboration
(Haapala, 2001), preferred learning media (Her, 2006), learner
satisfaction (Houldson, 2009), and academic performance (Pearcy,
Table 6
Sub-topics of the primary topic instructional design—71 manuscripts—34.6% of total manuscripts.
Sub-topic # 7% Example research question
Models, strategies & best
practices
38 18.5% (Wang, 2009) What are the wise practices for applying blended learning in teacher education at the
program level?
Design process 24 11.7% (Fanning, 2008) To what extent is ISD currently used to inform the design, development, and
implementation of virtual learning environments?
Implementation 12 5.9% (Cherry, 2010) What factors predict the successful implementation of blended learning as a supplement
to face-to-face instruction in grades 9–12?
Environment & course
structure
7 3.4% (Kumrow, 2005) What relationships, if any, exist between study environment and academic performance
in a Web-based hybrid graduate nursing course?
Evaluation tools 4 2.0% (Zhang, 2003) How stable were evaluators' results based on an evaluation rubric built around content,
clarity, and creative thinking/critical thinking?
Table 7
Sub-topics of the primary topic interaction—60 manuscripts—29.3% of total manuscripts.
Student-to-instructor 17 8.3% (Rasmussen, 2003) What is the quantity and
quality of human interaction occurring…
between the instructor, face-to-face students
and distant students?
General interaction 17 8.3% (Pearcy, 2009) Is there a relationship between
students' actual online interactions and
academic performance?
Student-to-student 10 4.9% (Brown, 2008) How do the students interact
with each other in a hybrid format?
Collaboration 11 5.4% (Zhang, 2004) Which approach to peer online
collaboration is more effective…?
Community 10 4.9% (Brown, 2008) How is a learning community
experienced in a hybrid learning environment?
Social presence 8 3.9% (Ruhlandt, 2010) Is there a difference in social
presence…between online or blended courses?
Table 8
Sub-topics of the primary topic comparison—44 manuscripts—21.5% of total manuscripts.
Sub-topic # # Example research question
Blended and
face-to-face
34 16.6% (Caputo, 2010) How does the average achievement of
students in a hybrid calculus class vary from students
in a traditional calculus class?
Blended and
online
20 9.8% (Davis, 2007) Is there a significant difference in the
grades of students enrolled in hybrid courses and
those enrolled in distance only courses?

2009). Results from the studies were mixed and derived from a
variety of unique settings.
While we were not able to identify strong patterns in our data,
five recent meta-analyses proved helpful in comparing blended
learning with other modalities of instruction (Bernard et al., 2009;
Means et al., 2009; Paul, 2001; Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher,
2006; Zhao, Lei, Yan, Lai, & Tan, 2005). The overall evidence of these
meta-analyses showed improved outcomes for blended learning, howev-
er the understanding about why was not conclusive and merits further
research (Graham, 2013).
4.3.6. Additional minor trends
Research that examined faculty demographics was extremely low,
while much more attention was given to student demographics (see
Table 9). We feel that to understand the blended learning ecosystem, all
stakeholders—and especially the faculty implementing the blends—
should receive more attention from researchers.
Considering the relative importance of technology to blended learn-
ing, little research has been done in this area (see Table 10). Perhaps
our field is relying on technology research carried out by studies in
distance education. Picciano and Seaman (2009) encouraged researchers
to recognize that there are differences between blended learning and
distance education. They said, “In sum, the blended model…is sufficiently
different in its planning and delivery that researchers should distinguish it
from the fully online model” (p. 5). We recommend that more research be
done specific to how technology can be used within a blended environ-
ment, where face-to-face still plays a vital role.
Seven percent of our documents attended to professional develop-
ment (see Table 11). Since blended learning requires innovative adapta-
tions that might benefit from professional training, this seemed to us to
be low. We felt that this again illustrated the need for more research
attention to faculty and staff needs, in addition to the attention already
being devoted to student needs. Moreover, professional development is
readily recognized as important to improved instruction; for example,
Piper (2010) reviewed more than 300 policy statements in order to
identify those that had the highest importance and feasibility ratings to
support the implementation of online instruction and learning in the
United States K-12 educational system. She narrowed the initial list into
69 collapsed policy statements. Then a group of expert panelists of online
instruction and learning practitioners deemed six to be both feasible and
important. Two of those six had to do with teaching training (professional
development). Nonetheless, as stated previously, less than 7% of the
theses and dissertations reviewed here researched professional develop-
ment for blended learning instructors.
No single subcategory in this grouping received significant attention
(see Table 12). However, we perceived some striking gaps. First, the topics
of access and availability, and of cost and funding, all received minimal
research attention. Since access and cost overlap with two of the
five “pillars” of the Sloan-C quality framework (Moore, 2005), we found
this dearth of research surprising.
4.4. Topical trends: theoretical frameworks
Theory provides a common language and focus for creating and
discussing knowledge in scholarly communities (Dubin, 1978). Our
objective in identifying theoretical frameworks was to determine how
theory was being used in blended learning research and which theories
were most heavily drawn upon. Extracting these frameworks was more
difficult and subjective than we anticipated. Most researchers heavily
cited theory in their literature reviews to provide context for their
study, but failed to make substantive contributions to theory, a concern
noticed previously by Graham (2013). Few researchers used theoretical
frameworks to shape their research questions. Some of the frameworks
researchers sought to build upon most often included Garrison's Commu-
nity of Inquiry (Brunsting, 2009; Ruhlandt, 2010; Vaughan, 2005;
Wanstreet, 2007; Waterston, 2006), Moore's Transactional Distance
Theory (Bajt, 2009; Fladd, 2007; Parke, 2008), Wenger's Communities of
Practice (Keane, 2007; Wagner, 2010; Winter, 2010), and Mezirow's
Transformational Learning Theory (Brooks, 2009; Henry, 2008). We see
a significant need for more theoretical contributions unique to the context
of blended learning.
Table 9
Sub-topics of the primary topic demographics—29 manuscripts—14.1% of total manuscripts.
Student 26 12.7% (Copp, 2007) Are there differences in age, sex, class level or
ethnic/racial groups in students' attitudes toward hybrid
courses?
Faculty 4 2.0% (Oncu, 2007) What effect, if any, do instructor
characteristics have on student engagement?
Table 10
Sub-topics of the primary topic technology—28 manuscripts—13.7% of total manuscripts.
Uses/role 10 4.9% (Yerasimou, 2010) How did learners utilize the
various technology tools within the online learning
environment?
Effect of 7 3.4% (Mylott, 2008) How does technology impact design
decisions in creating effective instruction for adult
learners?
Types of 6 2.9% (Frazee, 2008) What technologies and tools are being
used and what is their role in e-coaching?
Implementation 6 2.9% (Deutsch, 2010) What experiences did instructors
have in implementing technology in blended
learning courses?
Familiarity 5 2.4% (Kraemer, 2008) What effects do previous experience
with and attitudes toward technology have on how
students perceive the hybrid course?
Table 11
Sub-topics of the primary topic professional development—15 manuscripts—7.3% of
total manuscripts.
Professional
Development
15 7.3% (Parra, 2010) How did professional development for
online teaching and learning…impact teachers…?
Table 12
Other topics.
Benefits &
challenges
14 6.8% (Wang, 2009) What are perceived advantages and
disadvantages of applying a blended format…in
teacher education programs?
Access/
availability
6 2.9% (Wang, 2006) How accessible and usable were the
commercially available e-Learning courseware tools
to DHH college students?
Support system 6 2.9% (Young-Lovell, 2010) What support system exists
within the educational framework for students and
teachers?
Cost/funding 5 2.4% (Callaway, 2005) Was the blended learning method cost
effective for teaching interpersonal skills in a bank
setting?
Nature and role
of blended
learning
4 2.0% (Morse, 2010) What is the nature and extent of online
and blended learning in K-12 schools in Rhode Island?
International
issues
2 1.0% (Warell, 2009) In what ways did an online MBA course
impact intercultural sensitivity development…?
Time efficiency 1 0.5% (Swann, 1999) Does CBI decrease the time required
for Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) CES ed-
ucators to learn new content?
97

5. Conclusion
More graduate research is being conducted on blended learning
each year. Significant amounts of research have focused on higher
education, student performance, and comparing the effectiveness
of blended learning to other modalities of instruction. Overall,
there seems to be a very practical bent to the research being done
in blended learning. This is not necessarily negative, but it has led
to inattention to theoretical foundations for research. This is a dan-
ger for our rapidly growing field; as Saba (2007) wrote, “Progress
in our field, and the development of sound prescriptive models, de-
mand that there be a close and iterative relationship between theory
building and practical application” (p. 52). There was a time when a
similar challenge was faced in research on the related field of distance
education; Moore (2004) felt distance education research faced “a dis-
connection between the empirical part of the research and the theoret-
ical” (p. 127). Likewise, blended learning research must be grounded in
theory. From distance education, many blended learning researchers
have relied on the theories of transactional distance (Moore, 1993;
Saba & Shearer, 1994), community of inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, &
Archer, 2001), guided didactic instruction (Holmberg, 1995), industrial-
ized education (Peters, 2007), and equivalency theory (Anderson,
2003) to inform their research. While distance education theories
have had a positive influence on blended learning research, blended
learning needs theoretical frameworks that deal directly with blended
learning and help practitioners in making decisions about how to effec-
tively blend and how to make decisions about the blends that they
choose. “Just as distance learning required theory to focus researchers
on psychological rather than physical distance, blended learning
needs theories to focus researchers on the substantive psycho-social is-
sues that make it distinct” (Graham, 2013). Such a foundation could as-
sist in uniting a fragmented body of blended learning research into
more broad and universal body of research.
Secondly, there are many emerging areas of blended learning prac-
tice. Blended learning has been used in corporate and higher education
environments for a long time and now is emerging rapidly in K-12
environments. Because research is far behind implementation in K-12
settings, we recommend increased research in all aspects of K-12 blend-
ed learning. The unique constraints in K-12 environments—such as the
supervisory role that educators play in K-12 education—affect the kinds
of blends that can happen. Adolescent learners have needs, abilities, and
limitations that are very different from those of higher education
students, where most of the research has occurred. K-12 teachers and
administrators have moved forward somewhat blindly into the realm
of blended learning. As research in this context continues to increase,
we believe that teachers and administrators will feel more confident
in their abilities to establish blended environments and implementation
will experience increased growth.
Another area for future research opportunities with blended learning
includes student motivation and engagement. While much research has
connected learner preferences with specific blended learning design
features, more needs to be done to discover what design features could
lead to greater student motivation and engagement. Whether a student
is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated, certainly an understanding of
design approaches that feed student motivation would increase the effec-
tiveness of blended environments.
We also see a need for more research related to institutional policy
and adoption issues. Blended learning has primarily been a grassroots
movement, with teachers combining face-to-face and online instruction
in individual classrooms in order to improve student learning. This move-
ment has spread to the extent that some have referred to blended learn-
ing as the “new normal” in higher education (Norberg, Dziuban, & Moskal,
2011). However, if there continues to be a disconnect between the
top-down policy and the bottom-up culture, then blended learning
growth will struggle (Casanovas, 2011). We believe that institutional
policy and adoption could prove to be a great unifier among teachers,
faculty, and administrators, thus strengthening their ability to improve
pedagogical practices through blended learning.
Institutional policy and adoption research is closely tied to two
other areas for which we encourage further research: professional
development and faculty dispositions regarding the implementa-
tion of blended learning. We have been eager to prove that
blended learning achieves student results—and levels of student
satisfaction—comparable to face-to-face and online settings, but we
have sometimes ignored the faculty members implementing the
blended instruction. Yet it is important to understand the entire
learning ecosystem, for, as Moskal, Dziuban, and Hartman (2010)
have argued, “students and faculty members must operate in reso-
nance. Instructors are unlikely to have a positive experience online
without positive and engaged clientele” (p. 62). Nor, we would
add, are students likely to have a positive learning experience in
any modality without a satisfied and engaged instructor.
As blended learning continues to grow in popularity, so must
researchers explore the potential and limitations of this field. Graduate
research in blended learning is increasing yearly. We encourage such
scholarship moving forward giving attention to matters such as theory,
K-12 environments, student motivation and engagement, and institution-
al policy and adoption issues.
References
Abel, V.Z. (2011). Self-authorship in undergraduate students in a blended-learning multicultural
course. Iowa State University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com/docview/874969254?accountid=4488. (874969254).
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right: An updated and theoretical rational for interac-
tion. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2) (Retrieved
August 27, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230)
Arano-Ocuaman, J. (2010). Differences in student knowledge and perception of learning experi-
ences among non-traditional students in blended and face-to-face classroom delivery. Uni-
versity of Missouri—Saint Louis. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/821438553?accountid=4488. (821438553).
Ayala, J.S. (2007). The university of calgary's distance MSW in leadership in the
human services: A case study. University of Calgary (Canada). ProQuest Disser-
tations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
304898942?accountid=4488. (304898942).
Baglien, V. G. (2009). Implementation of blended instruction: A case study of secondary family
and consumer sciences. Iowa State University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304902373?accountid=4488.
(304902373).
Bajt, S.K. (2009). Preferred distance learning modalities of millennial community
college students. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ProQuest Disserta-
tions and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
304894997?accountid=4488. (304894997).
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., & Surkes, M. A.
(2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance educa-
tion. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
0034654309333844.
Borup, J., West, R.E., Graham, C.R., & Davies, R. (in review). The adolescent community of
engagement framework as a lens for K-12 online research.
Brooks, L. (2009). An analysis of factors that affect faculty attitudes toward a blended learning
environment. TUI University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://
Brown, J. W. (2008). Hybrid learning in teacher education: A qualitative study about
student experiences with language, culture and power in a multiculturalism classroom
using online and face-to-face instructional formats. Purdue University. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
304502267?accountid=4488. (304502267).
Brunsting, A.K. (2009). Student academic achievement in developmental and college-level
course work before and after developmental education instructional changes at a
Southeast Texas community college. Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi. ProQuest
89177906?accountid=4488. (89177906).
Callaway, K. L. (2005). Learning interpersonal skills in banking through blended learning.
Capella University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.
proquest.com/docview/305361077?accountid=4488. (305361077).
Caputo, M. G. (2010). Undergraduate mathematics students' attitudes towards online
mathematics education and achievement in a hybrid calculus course. Teachers College,
Columbia University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.
Casanovas, I. (2011). The impact of communicating institutional strategies on teachers
attitude about adopting online education. 6th International Conference on
e-Learning-ICEL 2011, vol. 8. (pp. 62–71)British Columbia: Kelowna.
Cherry, L. D. (2010). Blended learning: An examination of online learning's impact on
face-to-face instruction in high school classrooms. Walden University. ProQuest

230909406?accountid=4488. (230909406).
Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 42(2), 21–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.03.018.
Collaboration for Online Higher Education Research. (2011). Innovative Practices Re-
search Project: COHERE Report on Blended Learning.
Comey, W.L. (2009). Blended learning and the classroom environment: A comparative analysis
of students' perception of the classroom environment across community college courses
taught in traditional face-to-face, online and blended methods. The George Washington
University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/288045934?accountid=4488. (288045934).
Cunningham, C.A. (2011). Using learner controlled progress-based rewards to promote motiva-
tion and achievement of at-risk students in managed online learning environments. Nova
Southeastern University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com/docview/897068541?accountid=4488. (897068541)
Copp, C. D. (2007). Students, faculty, and administrators: Perceptions of hybrid instruction in
higher education. University of California, Irvine. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
(304883264).
Davies, R. S., Howell, S. L., & Petrie, J. A. (2010). A review of trends in distance education
scholarship at research universities in North America, 1998–2007. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 42–56.
Davis, D.E. (2007). Best of both worlds: Do hybrid courses have better outcomes than distance
only courses in the North Carolina community college system? North Carolina State Univer-
sity. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/304832992?accountid=4488. (304832992).
Deutsch, N. (2010). Instructor experiences with implementing technology in blended
learning courses in higher education. University of Phoenix. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/815810568?
accountid=4488. (815810568).
Devlin, B. M. (2010). Effects of students' multiple intelligences on participation rate of
course components in a blended secondary family and consumer sciences course.
Iowa State University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., Cavanagh, T. B., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). Blended courses as
drivers of institutional transformation. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended learning across
disciplines: Models for implementation (pp. 17–37). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Eklund, J., Kay, M., & Lynch, H. (2003). E-learning: Emerging issues and key trends. : Australian
National Training Authority.
Ellis, L. (2008). Writing instruction and learning strategies in a hybrid EAP course: A case
study with college-bound ESL students. Walden University. ProQuest Dissertations
accountid=4488. (304403863).
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (pp. 142–168). Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Fanning, E. (2008). Instructional design factors as they relate to the creation of a virtual
learning environment. University of Virginia. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
(304438451).
Fladd, L.A. (2007). The effect of instructional delivery method on interaction and satis-
faction in distance education courses at a community college. Clemson University.
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 199 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
Frazee, R. V. (2008). E-coaching in organizations: A study of features, practices, and
determinants of use. University of San Diego. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
(304840961).
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence,
and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education, 15(1), 7–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001.
Gonzalez-Castillo, D. (2008). An exploratory study of faculty attitudes regarding hybrid
course effectiveness in an urban community college system. Sam Houston State
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future
directions. In C. J. Bonk, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global
perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore
(Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 333–350). (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Haapala, I.H. (2001). Teaching food safety: A comparison of computer-mediated versus
face-to-face cooperative learning. The Pennsylvania State University. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses, 122 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
Hackemann, S. I. (2010). Keeping 'em down on the farm: Retention best practices for
hybrid/blended courses at the community college level. Capella University. ProQuest
839821677?accountid=4488. (839821677).
Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop
the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. In M. D. Svinicki (Ed.), Teaching
and learning on the edge of the millennium: Building on what we have learned. New
directions for teaching and learning. (pp. 69–74) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Drysdale, J. S. (2012). An analysis of high
impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Education,
33(3), 381–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.723166.
Henry, R. (2008). Hybrid learning environments in higher education can transforma-
tional learning outcomes be achieved? Trevecca Nazarene University. ProQuest Dis-
sertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
612699332?accountid=4488. (612699332).
Her, M.H.Y. (2006). An investigation of students' media preferences in learning mathematical
concepts. Georgia State University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
Holmberg, B. (1995). Theory and practice of distance education (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Houldson, R.D. (2009). A study of student satisfaction with and success in a nursing program
taught in a traditional face-to-face method as compared to a hybrid program. (S. Adams,
Ed.) ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. School of Psychology, United States—Minnesota
Katz, L. G. (1988). What should young children be doing? American Educator: The Pro-
fessional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 29–45 (Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ375727)
Keane, L.B. (2007). A technology-supported academic community of practice: A case
study. New York University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.
Kraemer, A. N. (2008). Engaging the foreign language learner: Using hybrid instruction to
bridge the language-literature gap. Michigan State University. ProQuest Dissertations
accountid=4488. (304576528).
Kumrow, D. E. (2005). A pilot study to investigate the relationship between student
self-regulatory resource management strategies and academic achievement in a
web-based hybrid graduate nursing course. University of Southern California.
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categor-
ical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
Manning, K.E. (2010). A delphi study: Exploring faculty perceptions of the best practices
influencing student persistence in blended courses. Capella University. ProQuest Dis-
305264869?accountid=4488. (305264869).
Mayadas, A. F., & Picciano, A. G. (2007). Blended learning and localness: The means and
the end. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 3–7.
McClure, J. L. (2006). Hybrid instruction in higher education: Student characteristics,
motivations, expectations, and experiences. Loyola University Chicago. ProQuest
305301785?accountid=4488. (305301785).
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of
evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online
learning studies. Washington, D.C., U.S.: Department of Education, Office of Plan-
ning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
Mike, A.M. (2010). Determining the impact on the professional learning of graduates of a sci-
ence and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program. Montana
State University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Dis-
tance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical
principles of distance education (pp. 22–28). New York, NY: Routledge.
Moore, M. G. (2004). Editorial: Research worth publishing. American Journal of Distance
Education, 18(3), 127–130.
Moore, J. (2005). The Sloan consortium quality framework and the five pillars. The
Sloan Consortium (Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/
books/qualityframework.pdf)
Morse, B. C. (2010). Virtual education in rhode island's K-12 public schools: Current
status and perceptions of administrators. Johnson & Wales University. ProQuest
230974517?accountid=4488. (230974517).
Moskal, P. D., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2010). Online learning: A transforming environ-
ment for adults in higher education. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult
learning: New frontiers for teaching practices (pp. 54–68). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Mylott, D. T. (2008). An instructional technology guide for technical trainers. Nova
Southeastern University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://
Nellman, S.W. (2008). A formative evaluation of a high school blended learning biology
course. University of Southern California. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
(304462547).
Newton, D. L. (2006). A comparison of student performance in traditional and web-based
prerequisite classes in a hybrid program. New Mexico State University. ProQuest
305276947?accountid=4488. (305276947).
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On
the Horizon, 19(3), 207–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748121111163913.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can “blended learning” be redeemed? E-learning, 2(1),
17–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.2.
Olson, D.M. (2003). Student perceptions of hybrid classes at a notebook university. The Univer-
sity of North Dakota. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 86 pp. Retrieved from http://
99

Oncu, S. (2007). The relationship between instructor practices and student engagement:
What engages students in blended learning environments? Indiana University.
Parke, J.M. (2008). Voices of faculty members in the community college: A grounded the-
ory study on hybrid course development and delivery. Northern Illinois University.
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions:
2006–2007. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Edu-
cation Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2009/2009044.pdf)
Parra, J. L. (2010). A multiple-case study on the impact of teacher professional develop-
ment for online teaching on face-to-face classroom teaching practices. Pepperdine
Paul, D.S. (2001). A meta-analytic review of factors that influence the effectiveness of
web-based training within the context of distance learning. Texas A&M Universi-
ty. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,126 pp. Retrieved from http://search.
Pearcy, A.G. (2009). Finding the perfect blend: A comparative study of online,
face-to-face, and blended instruction. University of North Texas. ProQuest Dis-
304963133?accountid=4488. (304963133).
Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of
thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 39(1).
(pp. 1–21): Wayne State University Press (Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.
org/psycinfo/1993-20281-001)
Peters, O. (2007). The most industrialized form of education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.),
Handbook of distance education (pp. 57–68). (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates.
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey
of U.S. school district administrators (pp. 37). Mahwah, NJ: Sloan-C.
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature
of online learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Al-
fred P. Sloan Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15. (pp. 127–135):
Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.004.
Piper, T. (2010). What policy changes do experts recommend K-12 instructional leaders enact
to support the implementation of online instruction and learning? ProQuest Disserta-
tions and Theses. University of La Verne, United States—California
Rasmussen, R.C. (2003). The quantity and quality of human interaction in a synchronous
blended learning environment. Brigham Young University. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses, 156 pp. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
305345928?accountid=4488. (305345928).
Reay, J. (2001). Blended learning—A fusion for the future. Knowledge Management Re-
view, 4(3), 6.
Ruhlandt, R.R. (2010). Differences in retention, social presence, cognitive presence, and
teaching presence in fully online and blended courses. Regent University. ProQuest
849288655?accountid=4488. (849288655).
Saba, F. (2007). A systems approach to theory building. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of
distance education (pp. 43–56). (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Saba, F., & Shearer, R. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic
model of distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1),
36–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526844.
Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience
of blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. The Higher Education
Academy (pp. 1–103).
Simpson, C. M. (2009). Distance education at a U.S. public, land grant institution: A case
study of faculty reward for junior faculty who teach via distance. University of
Michigan. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of
web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3),
623–664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x.
Staker, H., Chan, E., Clayton, M., Hernandez, A., Horn, M. B., & Mackey, K. (2011). The
rise of K-12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. Innosight Institute re-
port (Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/
uploads/2011/01/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf)
Strijbos, J., Martens, R., Prins, F., & Jochems, W. (2006). Content analysis: What are they
talking about? Computers in Education, 46(1), 29–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2005.04.002.
Sukseemuang, P. (2009). Self-directedness and academic success of students enrolling in
hybrid and traditional courses. Oklahoma State University. ProQuest Dissertations
accountid=4488. (305083429).
Swann, D. L. (1999). Comparison of computer-based instruction with face-to-face lecture
during an in-service training program for cooperative extension service educators.
Purdue University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://
Vaughan, N. (2005). Investigating how a blended learning approach can support an inqui-
ry process within a faculty learning community. University of Calgary (Canada).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 262 pp. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International
Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.
Wagner, J.M. (2010). Professional development in the digital age: Case studies of blended
communities of practice. University of California, Irvine and California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.
Wang, Q. (2006). Blending electronic and classroom teaching to support deaf and hard of
hearing college students. Nova Southeastern University. ProQuest Dissertations
accountid=4488. (304909924)
Wang, Y. (2009). A case study of an accelerated blended teacher education program. Indi-
ana University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.
Wanstreet, C.E. (2007). The effect of group mode and time in course on frequency of teach-
ing, social, and cognitive presence indicators in a community of inquiry. The Ohio
State University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 153 pp. Retrieved from
Warell, S. S. (2009). An exploration of the impact of an online MBA course on intercultural
sensitivity development. Marquette University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
(304923898).
Waterston, R. (2006). Interaction in online interprofessional education case discussions. Univer-
sity of Toronto (Canada). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 270 pp. Retrieved from
Willekens, R.G. (2009). Maintaining student engagement in community college hybrid courses.
Northern Arizona University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
Winter, G.B. (2010). Technical writing redesign and assessment: A pilot study. The University of
Southern Mississippi. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.
Yerasimou, T. (2010). Examining interactivity and flow in a blended course to advance
blended learning practices. Indiana University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
(759482107).
Young-Lovell, J. (2010). Assessing instructional strategies at barbados community college
hospitality institute in a dynamic global environment. Rochester Institute of
Technology. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.
Zhang, W. (2003). Doing english digital: An assessment model for a new college english
curriculum in china. Columbia University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
(305337610).
Zhang, K. (2004). Effects of peer-controlled or externally structured and moderated
online collaboration on group problem solving processes and related individual atti-
tudes in well-structured and ill-structured small group problem solving in a hybrid
course. The Pennsylvania State University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Re-
trieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305145486?accountid=4488.
(305145486).
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical
analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record,
107(8), 1836–1884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x.

An Analysis Of Research Trends In Dissertations And Theses Studying Blended Learning

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Analysis Of Research Trends In Dissertations And Theses Studying Blended Learning

Similar to An Analysis Of Research Trends In Dissertations And Theses Studying Blended Learning (20)

More from Don Dooley

More from Don Dooley (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Analysis Of Research Trends In Dissertations And Theses Studying Blended Learning