Analysis Of Research Trends In Dissertations And Theses Studying Blended Learning

TRENDS IN BLENDED LEARNING GRADUATE RESEARCH
1
Running head: TRENDS IN BLENDED LEARNING GRADUATE RESEARCH
Manuscript to be published in:
Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Spring, K. J. (2013). Analysis of research trends in
dissertations and theses studying blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), 90–100.
doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
An Analysis of Research Trends in Dissertations and Theses Studying Blended Learning
Jeffery S. Drysdale
Charles R. Graham
Kristian A. Spring
Lisa R. Halverson
Department of Instructional Psychology and Technology
Brigham Young University
Corresponding Author
Jeff Drysdale
801.709.4982
jeff.drysdale@byu.edu
Brigham Young University
150 MCKB
Provo, UT 84602

TRENDS IN BLENDED LEARNING GRADUATE RESEARCH 2
Publication info: Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Spring, K. J. (2013). Analysis of research
trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), 90–100.
doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
Abstract
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, dispositions, 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.
Keywords: blended learning, hybrid learning, research, scholarship, graduate student
research

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
1. An Analysis of Research Trends in Dissertations and Theses Studying Blended Learning
Thousands of corporate training programs, institutions of higher education, 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). Blended 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 integration of online and face-to-face-instruction (Garrison &
Kanuka, 2004; Graham, 2006; Graham, 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 development, methods, themes, and gaps within the domain
(Davies, Howell, & Petrie, 2010).
In this article we identify and analyze over 200 theses and dissertations written in the past
decade in the domain of blended learning. Our analysis documents the growth of blended
learning research and identifies demographic, methodological, and topical trends in that body of
research.
2. Literature Review

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
Over the past decade there have been many attempts to define blended learning (Graham,
2013; Mayadas & Picciano, 2007; Oliver & Triggwell, 2005; Picciano & Seaman, 2009;
Vaughan, 2007). Graham (2013) reviewed the various definitions with their strengths and
limitations. Additionally, Graham examined the literature related to learning effectiveness,
learner satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, access and flexibility, 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 effectiveness, 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 identified 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 participating 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, p <
.001. Only five instances of K12 instruction qualified for the analysis, leaving a need for further
study on the subject.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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 education. 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 demographic, methodological, and topical trends. The following questions were
used to explore these trends:

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
Demographic Trends:
(1) How has the number of blended learning theses and dissertations 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 manuscripts 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)

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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
determining 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 theoretical frameworks).
3.2.1 Categories for demographic trends. We divided studies into demographic
categories according to learner type and organizational level (see Table 1). Learner type
identified where the research was conducted: K-12, higher education, or corporate settings.
Organizational level categories identified the level on which the studied blend took place:
institution, program, course, or activity (Graham, 2006).
Place Table 1 Approximately Here
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 methodologies 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).

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
3.2.3 Coding for topical trends. All research questions were extracted from the
manuscripts to determine topical trends. We adapted a pattern established by Emerson, Fretz,
& Shaw (1995) to open code the extracted questions. Round one of coding 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 Figure 1).
Recognizing and understanding the trends in this growing body of research is important for at
least two key reasons. First, knowing the trends in blended learning research can help
researchers better frame their own investigations. Second, understanding 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.
Place Figure 1 Approximately Here
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
Figure 2). Only 13% of the manuscripts focused on a corporate context. Since one observer

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
claimed that by 2001 blended learning was “all pervasive in the training industry” (Reay, 2001),
we believe this shortage in corporate research is indicative of the limited access graduate
researchers have to corporations 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 publications (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 Figure 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 Figure 4). We believe 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
distance students into a synchronous online blended learning environment 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

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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. However 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. 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.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
4.2 Methodological Trends
The findings on techniques used for data analysis are presented in Figure 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.
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 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 education;
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

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
surveyed indicates that blended learning is meeting this minimum expectation. For example, in a
study that included 741 undergraduate students, there was a statistically 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 significant increase (p<.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 commitment, 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 identified. The dispositions code
included documents that addressed perceptions, 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
dispositions “are probably learned primarily from being around people who have them and who

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
exhibit them” (Katz, 1988, p. 30). Thus the significance of research on the effect of blended
learning on dispositions 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 interaction with others, and the freedom that goes along with hybrid classes”
(Olson, 2003, p 61). Students also indicated their learning experience 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 blended 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 applications”
(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 research was illustrated by the fact that for every sub-topic, more emphasis was
placed on students than on faculty.
4.3.3 Instructional design. One third of the manuscripts addressed matters related to
instructional 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

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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 overwhelming amount of
research (see Table 7). Moore (1989) identified three types of interaction important in distance
and blended learning contexts: learner-learner, learner-content, and learner-instructor. We found
a blatant gap in the research as no studies focused on learner-content interaction, which Moore
termed “a defining characteristic of education. Without it there cannot be education” (1989, p. 2).
Additionally, no research addressed student-parent interaction, an important facet of K-12

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
blended learning (Borup, West, Graham, & Davies, in review). With interaction taking place on
so many different levels, we see much need and opportunity 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-methods
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, 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, however 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.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
Considering the relative importance of technology to blended learning, 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 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 more research be done
specific to how technology can be used within a blended environment, where face-to-face still
plays a vital role.
Seven percent of our documents attended to professional development (see Table 11).
Since blended learning requires innovative adaptations 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 development for blended learning instructors.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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 Community 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
significant need for more theoretical contributions unique to the context of blended learning.
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

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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 danger for
our rapidly growing field; as Saba (2007) wrote, “Progress in our field, and the development of
sound prescriptive models, demand 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 disconnection between the empirical part of the research and the theoretical"
(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), industrialized 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 effectively 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 issues that make it distinct” (Graham, 2013). Such a foundation
could assist 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 practice. Blended learning
has been used in corporate and higher education environments for a long time and now is

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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 blended 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
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 effectiveness 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
movement has spread to the extent that some have referred to blended learning 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 institutional policy and adoption could

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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
implementation 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
resonance. 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 institutional policy and adoption issues.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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 interaction.
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
experiences among non-traditional students in blended and face-to-face classroom
delivery. University 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 Dissertations and
Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304898942?accountid=4488.
(304898942).
Bajt, S.K. (2009). Preferred distance learning modalities of millennial community college
students. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
(304894997).
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamim, R.M., Surkes, M.A., &
Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
doi: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
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 Dissertations
and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/89177906?accountid=4488.
(89177906).
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). Kelowna, British Columbia.
Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 42(2), 21-29. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.03.018
Collaboration for Online Higher Education Research. (2011). Innovative Practices Research
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

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
Cunningham, C.A. (2011). Using learner controlled progress-based rewards to promote
motivation 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)
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.
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
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.
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.
Fladd, L.A. (2007). The effect of instructional delivery method on interaction and satisfaction in
distance education courses at a community college. Clemson University. ProQuest

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
Dissertations and Theses, 199 p. Retrieved from
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. doi: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.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Graham, C.R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.),
Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY:Routledge.
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.
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
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 (pp. 69-74). New
Directions for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166
Henry, R. (2008). Hybrid learning environments in higher education can transformational
learning outcomes be achieved? Trevecca Nazarene University. ProQuest Dissertations and
(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 Professional
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 & Development, 42(2), 7-19.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical
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
Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
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.
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.
U.S. Washington D.C.: Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and
Policy Development.
Mike, A.M. (2010). Determining the impact on the professional learning of graduates of a
science and pedagogical content knowledge-based graduate degree program. Montana
State University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
Moore, J. (2005). The Sloan consortium quality framework and the five pillars. The Sloan
Consortium. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/books/qualityframework.pdf
Moore, M.G. (2004). Editorial: Research worth publishing. American Journal of Distance
Education, 18(3), 127–130.
Moore, M.G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical
Principles of Distance Education (pp. 22–28). New York, NY: Routledge.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Moskal, P.D., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2010). Online learning: A transforming environment
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.
Nellman, S.W. (2008). A formative evaluation of a high school blended learning biology
course. University of Southern California. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304462547?accountid=4488. (304462547).
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C.D., & Moskal, P.D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On
the Horizon, 19(3), 207-216. Doi:10.1108/10748121111163913
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can “blended learning” be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), 17-
26. doi: 10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.2
Olson, D.M. (2003). Student perceptions of hybrid classes at a notebook university. The
University of North Dakota. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 86 p. Retrieved from
Parke, J.M. (2008). Voices of faculty members in the community college: A grounded theory
study on hybrid course development and delivery. Northern Illinois University. ProQuest
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions:
2006-2007. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sci- ences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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 University. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses,126 p. Retrieved from
Pearcy, A.G. (2009). Finding the perfect blend: A comparative study of online, face-to-face, and
blended instruction. University of North Texas. ProQuest Dissertations and
(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), 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 (2nd ed., pp. 57–68). 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. Sloan-C (p. 37). Mahwah, NJ.
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 Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2012), 127-135. Elsevier Inc.
doi: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 Dissertations and
Theses. University of La Verne, United States -- California.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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 p. Retrieved from
Reay, ]. (2001). Blended learning—a fusion for the future. Knowledge Management Review,
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
Saba, F. (2007). A systems approach to theory building. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of
distance education (2nd ed., pp. 43-56). 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.
doi: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).
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. doi: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 report. Retrieved

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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 & Education, 46(1), 29-48. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International
Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94.
Vaughan, N. (2005). Investigating how a blended learning approach can support an inquiry
process within a faculty learning community. University of Calgary (Canada). ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses, 262 p. Retrieved from
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
Wang, Y. (2009). A case study of an accelerated blended teacher education program. Indiana
Wanstreet, C.E. (2007). The effect of group mode and time in course on frequency of teaching,
social, and cognitive presence indicators in a community of inquiry. The Ohio State
University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 153 p. Retrieved from
Waterston, R. (2006). Interaction in online interprofessional education case
discussions. University of Toronto (Canada). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 270 p.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
(304924919).
Willekens, R.G. (2009). Maintaining student engagement in community college hybrid
courses. Northern Arizona University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305066485?accountid=4488. (305066485)..
Winter, G.B. (2010). Technical writing redesign and assessment: A pilot study. The University
of Southern Mississippi. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from
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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x

Publication info: Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Spring, K. J. (2013). Analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying
blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), 90–100. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
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.

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.

Figure 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.

Figure 2. Learner type. Category, number of included manuscripts, percent of included manuscripts.

Figure 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.

Figure 4. Organizatoinal level of the blend

Figure 5. Data analysis methods
Figure 6. Individual primary data analysis methods.

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 4
Sub-topices of the primary topic Learner Outcomes – 106 Manuscripts – 51.5% of Total Manuscripts
Sub-topic # % Example Research Question
Performance
Outcomes
58 28.3% (Hackemann) What percentage of blended courses had
higher success rates...?
Student
Satisfaction
18 8.8% (Houldson) 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) What effects does the implementation of
technology have regarding students' levels of
engagement…?
Effectiveness 11 5.4% (Henry) In what ways does hybrid instructional delivery
transform student learning?
Motivation and
Effort
10 4.9% (Kraemer) What effects does the implementation of
technology have regarding students' levels of
engagement...?
Independence in
Learning
10 4.9% (Ellis) What evidence of self-directedness is present in the
hybrid program?
Retention Rates 9 4.4% (Ruhlandt) Is there a difference in course retention
between online or blended courses?

Table 5
Sub-topices of the primary topic Disposition – 79 Manuscripts – 38.0% of Total Manuscripts
Perceptions 54 26.3%
Students 38 18.5% (Yerasimou) What were learners’ perceptions with
respect to the learning activities, the tools, and the
overall blended course?
Faculty 21 10.2% (Baglien) What is the FCS instructors’... perception
about blended instruction as an effective method of
instruction?
Institution 1 0.5% (Simpson) What is the importance of distance
education to MSU?
Attitudes 11 5.4%
Student 9 4.4% (Newton) What attitudes and perceptions do students
have in relationship to their web-based courses?
Faculty 4 2.0% (Gonzalez-Castillo) (a) What are faculty attitudes
regarding the most important benefits of hybrid
courses for students?
Preferences 9 4.4%
Students 9 4.4% (Sukseemuang) What are the course design
preferences of students studying in the university?
Faculty 1 0.5% (Copp) Do faculty prefer technology or face-to-face
interaction for teaching and learning activities?
Student
Expectations
5 2.4% (McClure) What initial expectations about learning
experiences do students hold for a hybrid course?
Learning Styles 5 2.4% (Devlin) 3. Do different learning styles influence
student perceptions of course activities…?

Table 6
Sub-topices 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) Question 1: To what extent is ISD currently used
to inform the design, development, and implementation of
virtual learning environments?
Implementation 12 5.9% (Cherry) 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) 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-topices of the primary topic Interaction – 60 Manuscripts – 29.3% of Total Manuscripts
Sub-topic # % Example Resarch Question
Student-to-Instructor 17 8.3% (Rasmussen) 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) Is there a relationship between students’ actual
online interactions and academic performance?
Student-to-Student 10 4.9% (Brown, Joshua)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, Joshua) How is a learning community experienced
in a hybrid learning environment?
Social Presence 8 3.9% (Ruhlandt) Is there a difference in social
presence...between online or blended courses?

Table 8
Sub-topices 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) 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) Is there a significant difference in the grades of students
enrolled in hybrid courses and those enrolled in distance only
courses?

Table 9
Sub-topices of the primary topic Demographics – 29 Manuscripts – 14.1% of Total Manuscripts
Student 26 12.7% (Copp) Are there differences in age, sex, class level or
ethnic/racial groups in students attitudes toward hybrid courses?
Faculty 4 2.0% (Oncu) What effect, if any, do instructor characteristics have on
student engagement?

Table 10
Sub-topices of the primary topic Technology – 28 Manuscripts – 13.7% of Total Manuscripts
Uses/role 10 4.9% (Yerasimou) How did learners utilize the various technology
tools within the online learning environment?
Effect of 7 3.4% (Mylott) How does technology impact design decisions in
creating effective instruction for adult learners?
Types of 6 2.9% (Frazze) What technologies and tools are being used and what
is their role in e-coaching?
Implementation 6 2.9% (Deutsch) What experiences did instructors have in
implementing technology in blended learning courses?
Familiarity 5 2.4% (Kraemer) What effects do previous experience with and
attitudes toward technology have on how students perceive
the hybrid course?

Table 11
Sub-topices of the primary topic Professional Development – 15 Manuscripts – 7.3% of Total Manuscripts
Professional
Development
15 7.3% (Parra) 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) What support system exists within the
educational framework for students and teachers?
Cost/Funding 5 2.4% (Callaway) 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) What is the nature and extent of online and
blended learning in K-12 schools in Rhode Island?
International Issues 2 1.0% (Warell) In what ways did an online MBA course impact
intercultural sensitivity development...?
Time Efficiency 1 0.5% (Swann) Does CBI decrease the time required for
Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) CES educators
to learn new content'?

Analysis Of Research Trends In Dissertations And Theses Studying Blended Learning

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

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

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

More from Sara Alvarez

More from Sara Alvarez (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Analysis Of Research Trends In Dissertations And Theses Studying Blended Learning