Running head SAMPLE PAPER 1 A Sample Paper for the Purpos.docx

Running head: SAMPLE PAPER 1
A Sample Paper for the Purpose of Correct Formatting
Student Name
Liberty University
Per the Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association (APA; 6th edition), double-space the
entire paper (p. 229), except with charts or tables. Do not add
any extra spacing. Use Times New Roman,
12-point font. Do not use bold except for headings as necessary
(see page 62 of your APA manual).
Margins are set for 1" on top, bottom, and sides. All page
references will be to the APA manual, 6th edition.
Add two spaces after punctuation at the end of each sentence,
except in the reference list, for the sake of
readability (pp. 87-88). The header on the cover page is
different from the headers on the rest of the paper.
Only the cover page header includes the words Running head
(without the italics; p. 41). The header is flush
left but the page numbers are flush right (see bottom of p. 229).
Make sure the header font is the same as the
rest of the paper. Handouts on how to format the cover page (as
well as other handouts) are available on the

Online Writing Center’s webpage:
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=17176, and a superb
YouTube
video demonstration that provides visualized step-by-step
instructions for setting a paper up in proper APA
format is available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUjhwGmhDrI
Note: Comments inside boxes are not part of the formatting of
the paper. Section or page number references
to the APA manual are denoted in parentheses throughout.
Most citations within the body of this paper are
fictional, for instructional purposes only, but are also included
in the reference list for illustrative purposes of
correlating citations in the body of the paper with resources in
the reference list.
. Note: Center the following information in the top half of the
page: title, your name, and school name (2.01, p.
23; 41). Some professors require the course title and section,
the instructor’s name, and the date; add those on
the lines beneath the required title page information. Do not
use contractions in formal papers—in either the
title or the body of the paper (i.e., use “do not” rather than
“don’t”). Titles should include no more than 12
words. Titles use upper and lowercase letters (i.e., “title case;”

20.1, p. 23; see also 4.15 on pp. 101-102).
Prepared by Christy Owen, Brian Aunkst, and Dr. Carmella
O’Hare. Last updated June 28, 2016.
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=17176
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUjhwGmhDrI
SAMPLE PAPER 2
Abstract
Begin your abstract at the left margin (2.04 on p. 27; see also p.
229). This is the only paragraph
that should not be indented. Unless otherwise instructed, APA
recommends an abstract be
between 150–250 words (p. 27). It should not contain any
citations or direct quotes. This should
be a tight, concise summary of the main points in your paper,
not a step-by-step of what you plan
to accomplish in your paper. Avoid phrases such as “this paper
will,” and just structure your
sentences to say what you want to say. The following three
sentences exemplify a good abstract
style: There are many similarities and differences between the
codes of ethics for the ACA and
the AACC. Both include similar mandates in the areas of ----, -
--, and ---. However, each differs

significantly in the areas of ---, ---, and ---. For more detailed
information, see “Writing an
Abstract” at
http://www.liberty.edu/academics/graduate/writing/?PID=12268
This is just now at
168 words, so take a moment to eyeball how brief your abstract
must be. Think of your paper as
a movie, and the abstract as the summary of the plot that you
would share to draw people’s
interest into wanting to come and see your movie. Same thing:
you want to really hook and
intrigue them. What you have to say is important! Still only at
221 words here; remember to try
to stay under 250, unless your professor advises otherwise. The
keywords noted below highlight
the search terms someone would use to find your paper in a
database; they should be formatted
as shown (indented ½”, with the word “Keywords” in italics,
and the few key words in normal
print, separated by a comma.
Keywords: main words, primary, necessary, search terms
http://www.liberty.edu/academics/graduate/writing/?PID=12268

SAMPLE PAPER 3
A Sample Paper for the Purpose of Correct Formatting
The title of your paper goes on the top line of the first page of
the body. It should be
centered, unbolded, and in title case (all major words—usually
those with four+ letters—should
begin with a capital letter) --- see figure 2.1 on p. 42 and 4.15
on pp. 101-102. You can either
give a brief introductory paragraph below that or go straight
into a Level 1 heading. In APA
format, the Introduction never has a heading (simply begin with
an introductory paragraph
without the word "Introduction"); see first paragraph of section
2.05 on page 27, as well as the
first sentence under the bolded headings on page 63 of your
APA manual (American
Psychological Association [APA], 2010). As shown in the
previous sentence, use brackets to
denote an abbreviation within parentheses (third bullet under
4.10). Write out acronyms the first
time mentioned, such as American Psychological Association
for APA, and then use the
acronym throughout the body of the paper (4.22; note the
section on underuse, however, at the

top of p. 107).
Basic Rules of Scholarly Writing
Most beginning students have difficulty learning how to write
papers and also format
papers correctly using the sixth edition of the APA manual
(APA, 2010). However, the Liberty
University Online Writing Center’s mission includes helping
students learn how to be
autonomous, proficient writers, and thus this sample paper is
designed so it cannot be used as a
template for inserting the correct parts. For the purpose of
instruction, this paper will use second
person (you, your), but third person (this author) must be used
in most student papers. First
person (I, me, we, us, our) is not generally permitted in
scholarly papers. Students should refrain
from using first or second person in academic courses (even
though the APA manual appears to
encourage this in other writing venues) unless the assignment
instructions clearly permit such (as
SAMPLE PAPER 4

in the case of personal reflection sections or life histories).
Though some written assignments
will not require an abstract, understand that APA generally
requires one unless otherwise stated
in your assignment instructions or grading rubric.
Heading Levels—Level 1
This sample paper uses primarily one level of headings (Level
1), so each heading
presented herein is centered and in boldface. APA style,
however, has five heading levels, which
will be demonstrated briefly for visual purposes. See page 62
of your APA manual (APA, 2010)
if employing more than one level. Level 1 headings are bolded
and in title case — capitalize
each major word (usually those with four or more letters),
including hyphenated compound
words. Four-Year Pilot Study on Attachment Disorders, and
Self-Awareness of Pollen are
examples of headings with compound words. Do not capitalize
articles (a, an, the) in headings
unless they begin a title or follow a colon.
Level 2 Heading
Level 2 headings are bolded, in title case, and left-justified.

The supporting information
is posed in standard paragraph form beneath it. Never use only
one of any level of heading. You
must use two or more of any level you use, though not every
paper will require more than one
level.
Level 3 heading. Is bolded, indented ½”, in sentence case (only
the first word should
begin with a capital letter in most cases), and ends with a
period. Add two spaces, then begin
typing your content on the same line, as presented in this
paragraph.
Level 4 heading. Same as Level 3, except italicized, too.
Level 5 heading. Same as Level 4, but unbolded. Despite
heavy writing experience, this
author has never used Level 5 headings.
SAMPLE PAPER 5
Annotated Bibliographies, Tables of Contents, and Outlines
A few requirements in various assignments are not addressed in
the APA manual, such as
outlines, tables of content, and annotated bibliographies. APA

does not regulate every type of
paper, including those forms. In those cases, follow your
professor’s instructions and the
grading rubric for the content and format of the outline or
annotations, and use standard APA
formatting for all other elements (such as running head, title
page, body, reference list, 1"
margins, double-spacing, Times New Romans 12-point font,
etc.).
That being said, when I organize outlines in APA format, I set
my headings up in the
proper levels (making sure there are at least two subheadings
under each level), and then I use
those to make the entries in the outline. Level 1 headings
become Roman Numbers (I, II, III),
Level 2 headings become capital letters (A, B, C), Level 3
headings become numbers (1, 2, 3),
and Level 4 headings become lowercase letters (a, b, c). Some
courses require “working
outlines,” which are designed to have the bones and
foundational framework of the paper in
place (such as title page, abstract, body with title and headings,
and references), without all the
supporting “meat” that fills out and forms a completed paper

Appendices
Appendices, if any, are attached after the reference list (see top
of p. 230). You must
refer to them in the body of your paper so that your reader
knows to look there (see top of p. 39).
The word “Appendix” is singular; use it to refer to individual
appendices. I am attaching a
sample Annotated Bibliography as a visual aid in “Appendix
A.” You will see that I included
the title “Appendix A” at the top of the page and formatted it in
standard APA format beneath
that.
SAMPLE PAPER 6
Crediting Your Sources
Paraphrasing is rephrasing another’s idea in one’s own words.
Quoting is using another’s
exact words. Both need to be cited; failure to do so constitutes
plagiarism. Liberty University
also has a strict policy against a student using the same paper
(or portions thereof) in more than
one class or assignment, which it deems “self-plagiarism.”

Students who want to cite their own
prior work must cite and reference it just like any other source;
see example in Owen (2012).
Include the author(s) and year for paraphrases and the author(s),
year, and page or paragraph
number for direct quotes. Page numbers should be used for any
printed material (books, articles,
etc.), and paragraph numbers should be used in the absence of
page numbers (online articles,
webpages, etc.; 6.05, pp. 171-172). Use p. for one page and pp.
(not italicized in your paper) for
more than one. Use para. for one paragraph and paras. (also not
italicized in your paper) for two
or more. For example: (Perigogn & Brazel, 2012, pp. 12–13) or
(Liberty University, 2015 para.
8).
Section 6.04 of the APA (2010) manual says, “When
paraphrasing or referring to an idea
contained in another work, you are encouraged to provide a
page or paragraph number,
especially when it would help an interested reader locate the
relevant passage in a long or
complex text” (p. 171). When naming authors in the text of the
sentence itself (called a narrative

citation), use the word “and” to connect them. For example,
“Allen, Bacon, and Paul (2011)
contemplated that . . .” Use an ampersand (&) in place of the
word “and” in parenthetical
citations and reference lists: (Allen, Bacon, & Paul, 2011).
APA’s (2010) official rule is that you must cite your source
every single time you refer to
material you gleaned from it (pp. 15-16). You can vary your
sentence structure to include both
narrative and parenthetical citations in order to avoid
redundancy. There is, however, an
SAMPLE PAPER 7
unofficial trend amongst some professors who require their
students to cite their sources only
once per paragraph (the first time you refer to it, not merely at
the end of the paragraph, which
can be interpreted as an afterthought), despite this being in
conflict with standard APA
formatting. You will want to clarify which your professor
prefers; if in doubt, cite every time.
That being said, APA (2010) has a special rule that excludes the
year of publication in

narrative in-text citations (when you name the authors in the
text of the sentence itself), after the
first citation in each paragraph ... provided that first citation is
narrative (and not parenthetical).
It should continue to appear in all parenthetical citations (see
sections 6.11 and 6.12, pp. 174-
175). If the first citation in the paragraph is parenthetical, then
ALL citations must include the
year. The two examples in 6.11 on pp. 174-175 are subtle, but if
you look carefully, you will be
able to discern this for yourself.
If the material you cited was referred to in multiple resources,
separate different sets of
authors with semicolons, arranged in the order they appear
(alphabetically by the first author’s
last name) in the reference list (Carlisle, n.d.; Prayer, 2015).
Periods are placed after the closing
parenthesis, except with indented (blocked) quotes. Quotes that
are 40 or more words must be
blocked, with the left margin of the entire quote indented ½
inch. Maintain double-spacing of
block quotes. APA prefers that you introduce quotes, but note
that the punctuation falls at the

end of the direct quote, with the page number outside of that
(which is contrary to punctuation
for non-blocked quotes). For example, Alone (2008) claims
(note that there are no quotation
marks for block quotes, as shown below):
Half of a peanut butter sandwich contains as much bacteria as
the wisp of the planet
Mars. Thus, practicality requires that Mrs. Spotiker nibble one
bit at a time until she is
assured that she will not perish from ingesting it too quickly.
(p. 13)
SAMPLE PAPER 8
Usually quotes within quotes use single quotation marks, but
use double quotation marks for
quotes within blocked quotes, since there are no other quotation
marks included within. Also
understand that direct quotes should be used sparingly in
scholarly writing; paraphrasing is much
preferred in APA format. Only use quotes when changing the
wording would change the
original author’s meaning. You cannot simply change one word
and omit a second; if you

paraphrase, the wording must be substantially different, but
with the same meaning. Regardless,
you would need to cite the resource you took this information
from.
Authors with more than one work published in the same year are
distinguished by lower-
case letters after the years, beginning with a. For example,
Double (2008a) and Double (2008b)
would refer to resources by the same author published in 2008.
If there are two different authors
with the same last name but different first names who published
in the same year, include the
first initials: Brown, J. (2009) and Brown, M. (2009).
The names of journals, books, plays, and other long works, if
mentioned in the body of
the paper, are italicized in title case (4.21). Titles of articles,
lectures, poems, chapters, website
articles, and songs should be in title case, encapsulated by
quotation marks (4.07). The year of
publication should always follow the author(s)’s name, whether
in narrative or parenthetical
format: Perigogn and Brazel (2012) anticipated, or (Perigogn &
Brazel, 2012). The page or
paragraph number must follow after the direct quote. Second

(2015) asserted that “paper planes
can fly to the moon” (p. 13). You can restate that with a
parenthetical citation as: “Paper planes
can fly to the moon” (Second, 2015, p. 13).
Citations in the body of the paper should include only the last
names, unless you have
two or more resources authored by individuals with the same
last name in the same year, such as
Brown, J. (2009) and Brown, M. (2009) mentioned above.
Numbers one through nine must be
SAMPLE PAPER 9
written out in word format, with some exceptions (such as
ages—see section 4.32 on page 112 of
your APA manual). Numbers 10 and up must be written out in
numerical format: 4.31(a).
Always write out in word format any number that begins a
sentence: 4.32(a).
Three or More Authors
When referring to material that comes from three to five
authors, include all of the
authors’ last names in the first reference. Subsequently, use just
the first author’s last name

followed by the words et al. (without italics). Et al. is a Latin
abbreviation for et alii, meaning
“and others,” which is why the word “al.” has a period, whereas
“et” does not. Alone, Other, and
Other (2011) stipulated that peacocks strut. The second time I
refer to their material, I would
apply APA’s rule (Alone et al., 2011).
When a work has six or more authors, cite only the last name of
the first author in the
body of the paper, followed by et al., as if you had already cited
all of the authors previously
(Acworth et al., 2011). Note that I had not cited the Acworth et
al. (2011) resource previously in
this paper. For seven or fewer authors in the references, write
out all of the authors’ last names
with first- and middle initials, up to and including the seventh
author. APA has a special rule for
resources with eight or more authors: Write out the first six
authors’ last names with initials,
insert an ellipsis (…) in place of the ampersand (&), and finish
it with the last name and initials
of the last author. See the examples provided in the chart on
page 177 (APA, 2010), as well as

this paper’s reference list for visuals of these variances
(Acworth et al. 2011; Harold et al.,
2014).
Primary Sources versus Secondary Sources
APA strongly advocates against using secondary sources; rather,
it favors you finding
and citing the original (primary) resource whenever possible
(6.17, p. 178). On the rare occasion
SAMPLE PAPER 10
that you do find it necessary to cite from a secondary source,
both the primary (who said it) and
secondary (where the quote or idea was mentioned) sources
should be included in the in-text
citation information. Only the secondary source should be listed
in the reference section,
however. Use “as cited in” (without the quotation marks) to
indicate the secondary source. For
example, James Morgan hinted that “goat milk makes the best
ice cream” (as cited in Alone
2008, p. 117). Morgan is the primary source (he said it) and
Alone is the secondary source (he
quoted what Morgan said). Only the secondary source is listed

in the reference section (Alone,
and not Morgan) because if readers want to confirm the quote,
they know to go to page 117 of
Alone’s book.
Personal Communication and Classical Work
Personal Communications
The APA manual rationalizes the exclusion of references for
information obtained
through personal communication (such as an interview, email,
telephone call, postcard, text
message, or letter) in the reference list because your readers
will not be able to go directly to
those sources and verify the legitimacy of the material. Instead,
these items are cited only in the
body of the paper. You must include the individual’s first
initial, his or her last name, the phrase
“personal communication,” and the full date of such
communication. As with other citations,
such citations may be either narrative or parenthetical. For
example, L. Applebaum advised him
to dip pretzel rolls in cheese fondue (personal communication,
July 13, 2015). The alternative is
that he was advised to dip pretzel rolls in cheese fondue (L.

Applebaum, personal
communication, July 13, 2015). Note that there is no entry for
Applebaum in the reference list.
SAMPLE PAPER 11
Classical Works
Classical works, such as the Bible and ancient Greek or Roman
works, are also cited in
the body of the paper but not included in the reference list. If
you use a direct quote, you must
include the full name of the version or translation you quoted
from the first time you quote from
it, but then you do not name the version or translation again in
subsequent quotes unless you
change versions or translations (6.18, pp. 178-179). For
example, Philippians 2:14 commands us
to “Do everything without complaining and arguing” (New
Living Translation). James 1:27
proclaims that “Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God
the Father means caring for
orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the
world corrupt you.” Galatians 5:22
says that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,

kindness, goodness, faithfulness”
(New American Standard). Note that there is no translation
cited for the middle quote, since it
was also taken from the NLT, which was specified in the
immediately-preceding citation as well.
Technically, it would not be necessary or proper to include any
version when you paraphrase the
Bible because all versions essentially say the same message in
each verse, so a paraphrase of one
would apply equally to all versions. However, the APA (2010)
manual is not explicitly clear that
this rule only applies to direct quotes, and for the sake of
consistency and curbing confusion, the
OWC has opted to advise students to include the version the
first time, even for paraphrases.
Lectures and PowerPoints
Course or seminar handouts, lecture notes, and PowerPoint
presentations are generally
treated like personal communications unless they are published
in material that can be readily
retrieved by your audience, like on a public website. When
citing a PowerPoint presentation,
include the slide number rather than the page number. For
purposes of LU course presentations

and lectures, however (which are not readily available to the
public), the OWC advises students
SAMPLE PAPER 12
that there are two options. The first and more proper way is to
cite it as a video lecture with the
URL for the presentation, naming the presenter(s) in the
author’s position. Many of LU's classes
are set up through Apple's ITunes University---search for your
course and find the specific video
at
http://www.liberty.edu/academics/cafe/bb/index.cfm?PID=2556
3. Brewers and Peters (2010)
is an example.
The second option, if you cannot find it on iTunes U, names the
course number and
enough details for others to identify it within that course, in a
sort of book format, with the city,
state, and publisher relating to LU. Peters (2012) is an example
of this. You'll note that in this
particular case, the iTunes U included information on a second
author that was not readily
identifiable in the Blackboard video itself. Usually, you will

find the year of publication in the
closing screen at the end of the presentation.
Dictionary Entries
The proper format for citing and referencing word definitions
from dictionaries differs
from other citations and references because the word defined is
used in the author’s position,
followed by the year (if known, or n.d. if not known). This is
followed by “In” and the name of
the dictionary (i.e., Merriam Webster), and includes a URL to
the webpage if searched online. If
you used a hard copy book, include the standard city, state, and
publisher details. The in-text
citation in the body of the paper would also use the word
searched in the author’s place, as well
as the year: (Heuristic, n.d.).
Exhaustive Samples Available
For a chart of a myriad of different sources and how each is
formatted in proper APA
format, look for the “Downloadable version of the OWL Purdue
information on APA citations”
on Liberty University’s Online Writing Center’s “APA
Formatting” webpage.

http://www.liberty.edu/academics/cafe/bb/index.cfm?PID=2556
3
SAMPLE PAPER 13
Electronic Sources
The APA, author of the APA manual, published a blog entry on
how to cite documents
found on the Internet (see
http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2010/11/how-to-cite-
something-you-
found-on-a-website-in-apa-style.html). It includes a .pdf chart
with all the possible
combinations, depending on what information you have or are
missing. Use this for all online
resources other than LU-course lectures.
APA requires inclusion of a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) in
the references whenever
available. These should be denoted in lower case (doi). Note
that there should be no
punctuation after the doi in your reference list, and no space
between the initials and the number
itself. If you cite “Retrieved from” with a URL, note that APA
(2010) does not include the date

of retrieval “…unless the source material may change over time
(e.g., Wikis)” (p. 192). Some of
the hyperlinks in this paper are activated (showing blue,
underlined text) for the purposes of
visualization, but hyperlinks should be removed in scholarly
papers --- and they should only
appear in the reference list. To do this, right click the hyperlink
in Microsoft Word and choose
“remove hyperlink.” Like DOI’s, there should be no period
after the URL. APA encourages
breaking long URL’s with soft returns (hold down the Shift key
and press the Enter key) at
forward slashes, periods, or underscores to avoid unsightly
gaps. You may have to remove
multiple elements of the hyperlink that linger in those
circumstances.
Final Formatting Tweaks
APA should be double-spaced throughout, with no extra spacing
between lines. It should
also include Times New Romans, 12-point font throughout.
Sometimes when you format your
paper or cut-and-paste material into it, things get skewed. One
quick way to ensure that your
paper appears correct in these regards is to do a final formatting

tweak after you have completed
something-you-found-on-a-website-in-apa-style.html
something-you-found-on-a-website-in-apa-style.html
SAMPLE PAPER 14
your paper. Hold down the “Ctrl” button and press the “A” key,
which selects and highlights all
of the text in your paper. Then go to the Home tab in Microsoft
Word and make sure that Times
New Romans and 12-point font are selected in the Font box.
Next, click on the arrow at the
bottom of the Paragraph tab. Set your spacing before and after
paragraphs to “0 pt” and click the
“double” line spacing. If you are more advanced on the
computer, you might consider changing
the default settings in Word that create some of these formatting
errors, but the steps listed here
will correct them if you don’t have advanced word processing
skills.
Conclusion
The conclusion to your paper should provide your readers with a
concise summary of the

main points of your paper (though not via cut-and-pasted
sentences used above). It is a very
important element, as it frames your whole ideology and gives
your reader his or her last
impression of your thoughts.
After your conclusion, insert a page break at the end of the
paper so that the reference list
begins at the top of a new page. Do this by holding down the
“Ctrl” key and then “Enter.” You
will go to an entirely new page in order to start the reference
list. The word “Reference” or
“References” (not in quotation marks—for singular or multiple
resources, respectively) should
be centered, with no bolding or italics. Items in the reference
list are presented alphabetically by
the first author’s last name and are formatted with hanging
indents (the second+ lines are
indented 1/2” from the left margin). If you include a DOI or
URL, be sure to remove the
hyperlink as addressed above.
One example of each of the primary types of resources will be
included in the reference
list, as cited in the body of paper, for illustrative purposes.
Remember that, for purposes of this

paper only, the sources cite in the body of the paper were
provided for illustrative purposes only
SAMPLE PAPER 15
and thus are fictional, so you will not be able to locate them if
you searched online.
Nevertheless, in keeping with APA style, all resources cited in
the body of the paper are included
in the reference list and vice versa (except for personal
communications and classical works, per
APA’s published exceptions). Be absolutely sure that every
resource cited in the body of your
paper is also included in your reference list (and vice versa),
excepting only those resources with
special rules, such as the Bible, classical works, and personal
communications.
The reference list in this paper will include a book by person(s),
a book whose publisher
is the same as the corporate author, a chapter in an edited book,
a journal article, a webpage
document, a resource with no author, a dictionary entry, one
with no year of publication noted,
two or more resources by the same author in the same year of

publication (arranged
alphabetically by the first word in the title, but with the
addition of letters in the year to
distinguish which one you are referring to in the body of your
paper), two or more resources by
the same author in different years (arranged by date, with the
earlier one first), resources with the
same first author but differing others, a paper previously
submitted by a student in a prior class, a
resource with up to seven authors, and one with more than seven
authors.
Lastly, below are a few webpages that address critical topics,
such as how to avoid
plagiarism and how to write a research paper. Be sure to check
out Liberty University’s Online
Writing Center (http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=17176)
for more tips and tools, as well
as its Facebook page
(https://www.facebook.com/LibertyUniversityOWC/).
Remember that
these are only provided for your easy access and reference
throughout this sample paper, but web
links and URLs should never be included in the body of
scholarly papers; just in the reference

list. Writing a research paper
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaa-PTexW2E or
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=17176
https://www.facebook.com/LibertyUniversityOWC/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaa-PTexW2E
SAMPLE PAPER 16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNT6w8t3zDY) and
avoiding plagiarism
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeCrUINa6nU).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNT6w8t3zDY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeCrUINa6nU
SAMPLE PAPER 17
References
Acworth, A., Broad, P., Callum, M., Drought, J., Edwards, K.,
Fallow, P., & Gould, P. (2011).
The emphasis of the day. Melville, PA: Strouthworks. 1
Allen, B., Bacon, P., & Paul, M. (2011). Pericles and the giant.
The Journal of Namesakes, 12(8),
13-18. doi:001.118.13601572 2
Alone, A. (2008). This author wrote a book by himself. New
York, NY: Herald. 3

Alone, A., Other, B., & Other, C. (2011). He wrote a book with
others, too: Arrange
alphabetically with the sole author first, then the others. New
York, NY: Herald. 4
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication
manual of the American Psychological
Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. 5
Brewers, G., & Peters, C. (2010). Defining integration: Key
concepts [video lecture]. Retrieved
from https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/introduction-to-
integration/id427907777?i=
92371729&mt=2 6
Brown, J. (2009). Ardent anteaters. Merill, NJ: Brockton
Publishers.
Brown, M. (2009). Capricious as a verb. Journal of Grammatical
Elements, 28(6), 11-12. 7
Carlisle, M. A. (n.d.). Erin and the perfect pitch. Journal of
Music, 21(3), 16-17. Retrieved from
http://make-sure-it-goes-to-the-exact-webpage-of-the-source-
otherwise-don’t-include 8
1 Resource with seven authors (maximum allowed by APA
before special rule applies).
2 Typical journal article with doi.

3 Entry by author who also appears as one of many authors in
another resource (single author appears first in list)
4 Multiple authors appear after same single-author resource.
5 Resource with corporate author as publisher.
6 LU video lecture using iTunes U details.
7 Resources by two authors with the same last name but
different first names in the same year of publication.
Arrange alphabetically by the first initials.
8 Resource with no publishing date, and url.
SAMPLE PAPER 18
Double, C. (2008a). This is arranged alphabetically by the name
of the title. Banks, MN: Peters.
Double, C. (2008b). This is the second (“the” comes after
“arranged”). Banks, MN: Peters. 9
Harold, P., Maynard, M., Nixon, L., Owen, C., Powell, C.,
Quintin, J., … Raynard, A. (2014).
Apricot jam: A sign of the times. Endicott, NY: Peace & Hope.
10
Heuristic. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (11th
ed.). Retrieved from
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/heuristic. 11

Liberty University. (2015). The online writing center. Retrieved
from
https://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=17176 12
Owen, C. (2012). Behavioral issues resulting from attachment
disorders have spiritual
implications. Unpublished Manuscript: COUN502. Liberty
University. 13
Perigogn, A. U., & Brazel, P. L. (2012). Captain of the ship. In
J. L. Auger (Ed.) Wake up in the
dark (pp. 108-121). Boston, MA: Shawshank Publications. 14
Peters, C. (2012). Counseling 506, Week One, Lecture Two:
Defining integration: Key concepts.
Lynchburg, VA: Liberty University Online. 15
Prayer. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.exact-webpage. 16
Second, M. P. (2011). Same author arranged by date (earlier
first). Journal Name, 8, 12-13.
Second, M. P. (2015). Remember that earlier date goes first.
Journal Name, 11(1), 18. 17
9 Two resources by same author in the same year. Arrange
alphabetically by the title and then add lowercase
letters (a and b, respectively here) to the year.
10 Resource with eight or more authors. Note the ellipse (…)

in place of the ampersand (&).
11 Dictionary entry.
12 Online webpage with url.
13 Citing a student’s paper submitted in a prior class, in order
to avoid self-plagiarism.
14 Chapter from an edited book.
15 LU class lecture using course details rather than iTunes U.
16 Online resource with no named author. Title of webpage is
in the author’s place.
17 Two resources by the same author, in different years.
Arrange by the earlier year first.
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN
EDUCATION, J9(4), 331-357
Examining the Development of a
Hybrid Degree Program: Using Student
and Instructor Data to Inform
Decision-Making
Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, Teresa S. Foulger, and Meredith
Toth
Arizona Stale University

Abstract
This paper investigates the qtiestions and considerations that
should be discussed by
administrators, faculty, and support staff when designing,
developing and offering a hybrid
(part online, part face-to-face) degree program. Using two Web
questionnaires, data were
gathered from nine instructors and approximately 450 students
to evaluate student and
instructor perceptions and opinions of hybrid instruction and
activities. In comparison to prior
research, the results of this study offer larger and more
significant policy and programmatic
implications for degrees based on the hybrid format, including
instructional technology
training and support for students and instructors, creation of
common class procedures and
expectations, and development of consistent schedules that
maximize benefit and flexibility
for stttdents and instructors. (Keywords: hybrid, online, degree
program, communities of
practice, teacher education, organizational change.)
INTRODUCTION
While online learning has become the focus of much research
and debate
regarding its efficacy in meeting or exceeding student learning
outcomes
(Neuhauser, 2002; Russell, 1999; Skylar, Higgins, Boone,
Jones, Pierce,
& Gelfer, 2005; Summers, Waigandt, & Whittaker, 2005),
hybrid courses
have been largely treated as a subset of distance education and
are seldom
examined as a unique method of course delivery. Due to the

development of
readily available technologies, the potential of hybrid
instruction as a model
that combines these new technological applications with more
traditional
approaches to education has been recognized (Anastasiades &
Retalis, 2001).
While literature exists evaluating online courses (Benbunan-
Fich & Hiltz, 2003;
DeTure, 2004; Overbaugh & Lin, 2006), online degree programs
(Benson,
2003; Snell & Penn, 2005; Wilke & Vinton, 2006), and hybrid
courses
(Donnelly, 2006; Leh, 2002; Riffell & Sibley, 2005), little has
been published
specific to the design opportunities made available by hybrid
degree programs.
Recent studies by the National Center for Education Statistics
(Waits &
Lewis, 2003) and The Sloan Consortium (Allen & Seaman,
2006) show a
growing appeal and acceptance of online learning. However,
little is understood
about effective program design when multiple courses are
linked in a formal
degree program.
Drawn by the appeal of a model that combines the flexibility of
online
learning with the benefits of in-class meetings and activities, a
teacher education
college in a university in the southwest United States chose to
investigate
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 331

the hybrid model as a new delivery method for its teacher
preparation
undergraduate degree program. Utilizing a survey research,
mixed-methods
approach, this study was largely exploratory in nature and
sought to answer
the following research question: What policy and programmatic
issues should
be discussed by administrators, faculty, and support staff when
designing,
developing and offering a hybrid degree program?
Through an analysis of student and instructor perceptions of
hybrid course
design and instruction coupled with administrative directives,
the researchers
sought to understand the concerns of each group. This study
documents the
knowledge brokered between students, instructors and
administrators, and
provides information to stakeholders that will inform degree
program decisions
and promote common practices across classes.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Compared to other areas of education research, the field of
online learning
is still relatively new, and consistent definitions or methods of
categorization
have yet to be established. Classifications of online learning
vary in a number
of ways, such as the technologies employed (Garrison, 1985),

teaching and
learning methods (Misko, 1994), pedagogical approaches
(Dziuban, Hartman
& Moskal, 2004), and where the design lies on the continuum
from fully face-
to-face to fully online (Allen & Seaman, 2005; Twigg, 2003).
Some scholars
do not draw such clear distinctions and instead describe as
"hybrid" any course
that combines traditional face-to-face instruction with online
technologies
(Swenson & Evans, 2003).
For the purposes of this study, the researchers use the hybrid
terminology
already in use by our university administration. This definition
aligns with
that of the Sloan Consortium (Allen &: Seaman, 2006) as a
delivery method
that blends face-to-face and online instruction. More
particularly, it aligns
with Twigg's hybrid model, which offers a more specific
definition referring to
the "replacement" of traditional class time with out-of-class
activities such as
Web-based resources, interactive tutorials and exercises,
computerized quizzes,
technology-based materials, and technology-based instruction
(Twigg, 1999).
To facilitate the transition from traditional face-to-face to
hybrid courses,
Aycock, Garnham, and Kaleta (2002) recommend instructors
start small
by redesigning an activity or unit of a course, then augment the
process in

subsequent semesters. When multiple hybrid courses are fully
implemented,
the hybrid degree program will accommodate the needs of
today's students
by offering a program that is accessible and flexible (Bonk,
Olson, Wisher, &
Orvis, 2002; Graham, Allen, & Ure, 2003; Sikora, 2002). This is
particularly
relevant when students taking multiple courses in a given
semester attempt to
schedule classes and internships in ways that support demands
on their time.
Over the last several decades, most research on courses that
blend face-to-face
and technology-mediated instruction has focused on the way
technologies such
as audio recordings (LaRose, Gregg, & Eastin, 1998), television
(Machtmes
& Asher, 2000), computer conferencing (Cheng, Lehman, &
Armstrong,
1991), or course management systems (Summers, Waigandt, &
Whittaker,
332 Summer 2007: Volume 39 Number 4
2005) can be used to provide instruction as effective as that of a
traditional
face-to-face classrooms. Literature specific to hybrid courses
has followed this
trend and also reveals an emphasis on student achievement
(Boyle, Bradley,
Chalk, Jones, & Pickard, 2003; McCray, 2000; Olapiriyakul &
Scher, 2006;

O'Toole & Absalom, 2003) or the affective factors most valued
by students
or instructors in hybrid courses (Ausburn, 2004; Bailey &
Morais, 2004;
Parkinson, Greene, Kim & Marioni, 2003; Woods, Baker, &
Hopper, 2004).
More recently, attention has shifted from the technology itself
to an emphasis
on the pedagogical approaches that should lead the way
(Bennett & Green,
2001; Buckley, 2002; Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2004;
Twigg, 2001).
Adding online technologies complicates instruction. Quality
online
instruction must incorporate learning theory and practices from
traditional
face-to-face courses as well as effective pedagogical use of
technology (Yang &
Cornelious, 2004). Since instructors rely on a number of factors
to accomplish
their programmatic goals, those that contribute to successful
instructional
design and delivery are difficult to pinpoint in degree programs,
whether online,
hybrid, or face-to-face (Moore, 1993).
Yet, if institutions interested in exploring hybrid delivery focus
only on
the design and delivery of individual course offerings, problems
such as
disjointedness, a lack of "program" focus, and overall poor
quality can arise
from neglecting to examine the program as a whole (Husmann &
Miller,
2001). Limited knowledge is available regarding the

programmatic implications
of hybrid design (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999), the focus of this
study.
As allies in the learning process, faculty and administrators
must take time
to identify the factors influencing student satisfaction, adapt
coarse design and
structure to meet diverse student needs, and actively engage in
the learning
process with students (Young, 2006). The present study seeks to
fill this gap in
the literature by understanding administrative directives and
gathering input
from student and instructor communities to identify the larger
and more
significant policy and programmatic implications related to
designing and
developing hybrid degree programs.
THEORETICAL ERAMEWORK
Participation in Communities of Practice
Within any organization, groups of people associated with a
common practice
naturally come together to share success and failures and
brainstorm new ideas.
This is a naturally occurring phenomenon of a healthy system
(Wenger, 1998).
Rogers (2002) observed that although opportunities for
individualized learning
are increasing, there are significant advantages to group
learning. Although
struggles are more likely to arise within groups and group work
requires certain
levels of maturity among participants (Goleman, 1995;

Mezirow, 2000), there
are definite advantages for groups in the learning process,
including (a) groups
can provide a supportive environment, (b) groups create
challenges unavailable
in isolated learning situations, (c) groups build more complex
cognitive
structures due to the representation of a variety of experiences,
and (d) groups
are dynamic and can become a community of practice as they
draw in members
(Rogers, 2002).
The Communities of Practice learning theory (CoP)
encompasses these
elements of collaboration within groups and organizational
systems. In a
single CoP, members represent unique experiences and
knowledge, but unite
for the purpose of improving their common practice. These
collaborative
experiences form naturally based on the needs of the
participants (Sumsion &C
Patterson, 2004). Once formed, the participants develop ways of
maintaining
connections within and beyond their community boundaries
(Sherer, Shea,
& Kristensen, 2003). Constituencies outside the CoP might
include those at
various levels within the organization, some outside of the
organization, and
newcomers attempting to enter the CoP. When individuals are

involved in
multiple CoPs, transfer of knowledge from one CoP to the other
can occur. It
is difficult, however, for newcomers in unfamiliar communities
to understand
the community workings as fully as long-standing members
(Brown & Duguid,
2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).
Boundary Brokers and Trajectories
In some cases, CoP members can take on the role of boundary
brokers to
expedite organizational change (Sherer, Shea & Kristensen,
2003). When
members of a community exist on the periphery and broker
information
with another CoP, a boundary trajectory occurs (Wenger,
McDermott, &
Snyder, 2002). In such cases, the links between the CoPs cause
boundaries to
expand and create a practical mechanism for greater
understanding between
communities (Iverson & McPhee, 2002). In this way, boundary
brokers
seamlessly expand access to resources within relevant
communities (Sherer,
Shea, & PCristensen, 2003), especially in organizations that
nurture membership
in multiple communities (Kuhn, 2002). However, it is a very
delicate challenge
to sustain an identity in this type of social setting, as those who
translate,
coordinate, and align perspectives through ties to multiple
communities must
be able to legitimately influence the "development of a practice,

mobilize
attention, and address conflicting interests" (Kuhn, 2002, p.
109).
Although organizations can support infrastructural investment
for CoPs,
CoPs fijnction best when members engage in authentic
interactions and
negotiations based on the needs of the members. These needs
bring them
together in a meaningful way surrounding their individual
identities, roles,
intentions, realities, and agendas (Thompson, 2005). This
balance between
administrative or professional development forces and the
organic needs of
members that choose to engage in the inquiry process reaffirms
the need
for a professional development environment that embraces CoP
functions
and empowers CoP members (Cousin &: Deepwell, 2005;
Foulger, 2005;
Thompson, 2005).
Situating This Study
As part of a college initiative to explore new modes of
delivering degree
programs, the college dean approached the Elementary
Education department
chair (the largest department in the college) and one technology
instructor
with the charge of creating capacity" to offer online courses. To
develop
and evaluate the courses, the technology instructor solicited
guidance from

/ Student
CVwiifniifiity
V
"-<
Instructor
CoP
--- --'
dmintfiRtTiition
CoP
j
BOUNDARY
BROB^ERING
Figure I. Findings from this study were drawn from the
convergence of student,
instructor, and administrator perspectives.
information technology administrators, instructional design
support personnel,
college administrators, department chairs, instructors, and
students. After
consulting with these stakeholders, the college offered a two-
day intensive
seminar on designing and developing hybrid courses.

Sixteen instructors, including the Elementary Education
department chair,
volunteered to participate in the hands-on seminar and redesign
a two-week
component of one of their face-to-face courses as a hybrid unit
offered half
online and half face-to-face. All of the instructors were
proficient with online
technology tools and received additional training in hybrid
course design
and instruction, but they had never taught online before. I h e
instructors
collaborated to redesign their units using asynchronous
technologies that
employed Blackboard tools and methods (Blackboard, version
6.2, the
university-sponsored course management system).
Because communities of practice are not necessarily fixed
systems, and
because each interaction among members has a multitude of
influences
(Wenger, 1998), a prescriptive vision for the hybrid program
could not be
determined at the conception of this hybrid investigation. This
lack of rigidity
was embraced by instructors participating in the study.
From the CoP perspective, the hybrid instructors in this study
negotiated a
balance between the identities associated with three specific
social forces (see
Figure I). The following issues were expressed prior to the
beginning of this
study and were used to inform the development of the hybrid
design:

• Administration Community of Practice: Administrators were
most
concerned with decreasing use of classroom space, providing
training and
support to hybrid instructors, and creating incentives for
participation.
Instructors served as peripheral participants and advisors to the
Administrative CoP at the onset of the study by communicating
the
need to develop policies and procedures supportive to the
transformation
of a face-to-face to hybrid degree program.
• Hybrid Instructor Community of Practice: Teacher education
instructors
who elected to redesign a previously-taught course into a hybrid
course
were initially concerned with maintaining high standards and
student
accountability, assuring that technology would be used to
enhance
instruction, and understanding which activities were best suited
for face-
to-face or online environments.
• Hybrid Student Community: Instructors initially knew very
little
about the student perspective. However, they realized the
importance
of brokering knowledge from the student community as a way to

understand their perspective and use the information to
influence
instructor and administrative decisions.
As the college devised initial plans for the development of the
hybrid program
and began implementation, purposefully exchanging information
between these
three critical stakeholder groups led to a greater understanding
of the realities of
each group. These initial conversations brought about a broader
understanding
of the contributing practices of administrators and instructors
believed to be
critical for student success in the hybrid degree program.
Through the methods
employed in this study, the researchers probed the instructor
and student CoPs
more deeply to determine the most effective practices and how
this knowledge
could inform the administrative CoP to advance the hybrid
program.
METHODS
Data reported in this study were collected from instructors and
students as
they experienced the college's first attempt at transforming
traditionally face-to-
face instruction to a hybrid format.
Instructor Sample
After completing the seminar on hybrid course design and
instruction, nine
of the 16 instructor participants (56%) committed to teaching

their hybrid
unit the following semester. At the conclusion of their units, all
nine instructor
participants completed the online Instructor Hybrid Evaluation
Questionnaire
(see Appendix), designed to capture instructors' perceptions of
their students'
and their own experiences with the hybrid unit. One instructor
completed the
questionnaire twice for two different courses (response rate =
100%).
Student Sample
Following the directions of the primary researchers in this
study, instructor
participants distributed the online Student Hybrid Evaluation
Questionnaire
(see Appendix) to their students who participated in their hybrid
unit
of instruction. To assure a high response rate, each instructor
solicited
participation directly from their students by explaining to
students that their
feedback would help improve the overall program, particularly
for fliture
students. Each of the nine instructors distributed the
questionnaire directly
to their students. Some students participated in more than one
course
where hybrid units were offered; these students were

encouraged to take the
questionnaire multiple times based on their unique experiences
in each course.
In cases where the relative response rate was of concern,
students were sent one
reminder to participate.
A total of 413 out of approximately 450 students completed the
online
questionnaire (response rate = 92%). The high response rate is
probably due
to the fact that students completed the anonymous online
questionnaire
during normal class time or were held accountable for their
participation,
predominantly through class credit.
Instrument
Rather than examining success factors for students in these
courses, two
complimentary Web questionnaires were designed to gather
information
regarding student and instructor perspectives of the hybrid
instruction and
activities, the hybrid degree program, and course planning and
design (Benson,
2002). Similar questionnaire forms allowed for comparative
analyses between
instructor and student participants and more holistic analyses
across groups.
Part I of both the instructor and student questionnaires collected
general
demographic, technology access, and course and programmatic
information.

Part II presented instructors and students with a list of
technology tools
provided within Blackboard. If tools were used, instructors and
students were
asked to respond to Likert-type items indicating the extent to
which the tools
enhanced a) the instructor participants' perceived abilities to
provide quality
instruction and b) the student participants' perceived abilities to
learn.
Part III, Section 1 asked instructors and students to indicate
their levels
of agreement with statements about affective factors of hybrid
instruction.
This section was adapted from materials provided online as part
of the
Hybrid Course Project at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee (Learning
Technology Center, 2002). To encourage students and
instructors to read and
reflect on each statement and decrease the likelihood that they
would select the
same value for continuous items, positive and negative
statements were placed
in a randomized sequence. Part III, Section 2 asked instructors
and students
to indicate their overall levels of agreement regarding face-to-
face and online
environments.
Part IV asked students and instructors to provide insights they
thought would
be useful to instructors and the college regarding online
activities, hybrid course
development, and hybrid degree program development.

Instrument Internal-Consistency Reliability
Estimates of reliability were calculated for each section of the
student and
instructor Web questionnaires. Coefficient-alpha estimates of
internal-
consistency reliability were computed for Parts II and III
(Cronbach, 1951).
Coefficient-alpha estimates for the positive and negative
statements built into
Journal of Research on Technology in Education
Table 1: Coefficient Alpha Estimates of Reliability
Part II:
Part III
Factors
Part III
Factors
Blackboard Tools
, Section 1: Affective and Personal
, Section 2: Overall Agreeability
Student Web
Questionnaire
0.724

0.718
0.853
Instructor Web
Questionnaire
0.791
0.828
0.744
Part III, Section 1 were adjusted so that responses could be
interpreted on the
same scale, and inversely related estimates would not cancel
each other out. All
sections of the Web questionnaires yielded acceptable alpha
levels (see Table
1 for coefficient-alpha levels of both instruments) and
warranted their use
for the purposes of this research study. Values below .70 are
oft:en considered
unacceptable (Nunnally, 1978).
Methods of Data Analysis
Frequency statistics were used to analyze each demographic,
course, and
programmatic question in Part I of both Web questionnaires. For
Parts II and
III, descriptive statistics were calculated using participant
responses to the
Likert items, and means were rank ordered to illustrate levels of
participant

agreement per item. T-tests using independent samples were
also used to test
for significant differences between the opinions of instructor-
and student-
participant groups.
Participant responses to the open-ended, free-response items in
Part IV
were read, coded, and reread, and emergent themes were
categorized into
bins (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Once bins became focused and
mutually
exclusive in nature, the items included within each bin were
collapsed into
categories, quantified, and labeled. Overall themes were
validated by instructor
participants during a focus group conducted by the researcher
participants, and
the themes were left: intact, without any additions or deletions.
These themes
will be discussed further in the Implications section of this
study.
RESULTS
Part I: Demographic Information and Technology Access
In Part I of the Web questionnaire investigators gathered
demographic,
technology access, and course and programmatic information
from student
and instructor participants. More than 60% of student
participants primarily
used a personal desktop computer to complete coursework.
About 20% of
student participants used portable laptops, and 10% completed
online lessons

and assignments on campus at the student computer center or
the library.
Approximately 90% of student participants accessed the Internet
through a
high-speed connection, while about 10% relied on dial-up
networks.
Students reported that an average of 3.7 of their courses (out of
a maximum
of five courses students may take each semester) involved some
hybrid
Online gradebook
Course document downloads
Internet sites/links
E-maii between instructor and
student
E-mail between student and student
SmatI gnsup discussion board
Full class discussion board
Online assignment submission
Online Qutzzes/Tests

Digital drop box
-
•̂1
.0
^ ^
122
•̂1
12,/
4
I!?
35
4
136
13.3
3 0
4
|;!8
0.0 0 5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
]

Figure 2. Blackboard tools ranked by students and instructors
from, most to least
useful.
component during the semester of study. Instructor participants
indicated that
they replaced an average of six face-to-face classes (out of
approximately thirty
total instructional days) with online instruction. The total
number of face-to-
face days replaced with online instruction ranged from a low of
two to a high of
10 days.
Part II: Student and Instructor Perceptions of Blackboard
Learning Tools
In Part II of the Web questionnaire, student and instructor
participants
identified the Blackboard tools they found most and least useful
in terms of
enhancing student learning in the hybrid format. The closer
each item mean
is to 5, the more the student or instructor participants agreed
with each
statement. For the purposes of this study, the results from this
section are used
to provide larger programmatic considerations and
recommendations (see
Figure 2).
Of the Blackboard tools identified in the Web questionnaire,
students found
the online grade book and announcements most useful. Students
appreciated

instructors who graded assignments and posted them in the
grade book in
a timely and efficient manner and criticized instructors who did
not use the
grade book effectively or did not post grades soon after
reviewing student work.
Students appreciated that they could monitor their progress in
courses using the
grade book and thought that more college instructors should use
the tool.
Although students appreciated the use of announcements, almost
50% of
student participants expressed a need for instructors to be
consistent with
announcement frequency and to provide clear and simple
written information.
Students also requested that instructors e-mail students after
posting an
announcement, particularly if announcements are not used as
part of the
normal class routine.
Students found the course document downloads, Internet sites
and links, and
e-mails sent to them from the instructor equally useful in terms
of technology
tools that enhanced their learning. Some students expressed
concern regarding
their ability to find or download course documents and others
had difficulty
visiting and spending time on Internet sites if they had only

dial-up access.
Students appreciated when instructors e-mailed them to clarify
components
of the coursework and most appreciated instructors who
responded to student
e-mails in a friendly, "timely" manner. Students were very
critical of instructors
who did not respond to student e-mails in a "timely" manner,
responded in
an unfriendly manner, or did not respond at all. Students
questioned whether
instructors who do not respond to e-mails in such a manner
should be
implementing online activities in their courses. Because
students do not meet as
often in a hybrid setting, the primary communication method
between students
and instructors is e-mail. When instructors did not respond in a
timely manner,
students expressed high levels of frustration and outright anger.
In general, students felt that discussion boards were more useful
than in-
class discussions because students could take their time to
compose a response,
students were required to participate online while they were not
required to
participate in face-to-face discussions, and students who
normally do not
participate in class were not as reluctant to express an opinion
online. Students
also found small-group discussion boards to be particularly
useful when quizzes
and tests required them to use the knowledge gained from such
discussions.

Despite these benefits, students felt that discussion board
assignments
sometimes became redundant, were not always useful, and
sometimes detracted
from more important course activities or assignments.
Instructors disagreed with their students in two ways. First,
instructors found
the Internet sites and links and the full class discussion board to
be significantly
more useful (p < .05) than their students found these technology
features.
Second, instructors found student-to-student e-mail, online
assignment
submissions, course document downloads, small group
discussion boards, and
online quizzes and tests as significandy less useful (p < .05)
than their students
found these technology tools.
Part III: Student and Instructor Responses to Affective Items
In Part III of the Web questionnaire, student and instructor
participants
indicated their level of agreement with thirteen affective
statements about
hybrid instruction. The closer each item mean is to 5, the more
the student or
instructor participants agreed with each statement (see Figures
3, 4 and 5).
Of the first 10 statements (Section 1), five were written in a
favorable
vernacular and five were written in an unfavorable vernacular.
For this reason,

Because of Ihe online oonrponents
in tiis course. I was (rry students
vwre) betsf able k> balance nv
(their) couneMKk Mth olher home
s in tijs course helped
me (them) leam more about t i e
I h e tochmlogy U5K) enhanced iTV
(nv students) understanding of the
ccurseworti
ltbundthatlv«Bs(nv students
M r e ) able to conW tie paoe of nv
(tieir) teaming rrore efle(*/Bly
because of the May Ihis course used
online t o l s
I (My student5) Ibund that I ves
(they were) beilBf able to dewtcp
m/ (tierr) conmjnicatKxi slqlls
because of Ihe technology tools
used.
Figure 3. Instructor and student responses to favorable,
affective questions.

results have been split into two sections and ranked from high
to low levels of
agreement.
Students agreed that the online components of their classes
helped them
balance their coursework with other home and/or work
responsibilities
and learn more about subject matter. Students most disagreed
that they
had to spend too much time trying to get access to a computer to
do the
coursework effectively, and that they were at a disadvantage
because they did
not understand how to use the technology tools as well as the
other students.
If the response rate had been lower, use of a Web questionnaire
might suggest
that students with technology issues were underrepresented in
the sample of
students who participated; however, this was not the case.
Students were most
ambivalent (mean = 2.5) towards whether online learning was
better than
learning in a face-to-face environment.
Instructors viewed the impact of online instruction on their
students'
learning significantly more favorably than did their students.
Instructors were
significantly more concerned than students with whether some
students were
disadvantaged by a lack of technology skills. Instructors were
significantly less
concerned than students with whether the time spent online

would have been
better spent in the classroom and whether online experiences
made students feel
less connected with their instructors (p < .05).
Part III, Section 2 included three overarching, open-ended
questions designed
to capture student and instructor participants' overall opinions
and suggestions
The tme i (my students) spent oniine
MHjkl have been beOer spent in ihe
dassroom
•Rie technology tools made me (my
stu<Jent5) feel less connecW wth
the instructor (me as their instructor)
The technology tools made me (my
students) *Bei less osnnected with
Ihe oiher students in this course
I felt tiat I was (some students were)
at a disadvantage in Ihis course
because I (Ihey) didni understand
how to use the technology tools as
well as other students

I (My students) had to spend too
mudi time trying to get acoess to a
a)mputer to do the coursevwrk
etfectiwiy.
Figure 4. Instructor and student responses to unfavorable,
affective questions.
regarding hybrid instruction. Each item mean is illustrated. The
closer each
mean is to 5, the more the student or instructor participants
agreed with each
statement.
Overall, students and instructors agreed that it would be a good
idea if the
entire teacher education program involved face-to-face and
online activities and
if other courses incorporated more online activities. They also
believed that the
content of the courses was well suited for a combination of
face-to-face and
online activities. Instructors agreed at higher levels, but
students and instructors
ranked the three statements in the same order by similar levels
of agreement.
Part IV: Student Responses to Open-Ended Questions
In Part IV of the Web questionnaire, student and instructor
participants
were asked to provide information or insights they thought
would be useful
to instructors and the college regarding online activities and
hybrid course

development.
In response to the request for information or insights they
thought would
be useful to their instructors regarding hybrid activities, student
participants
responded with enthusiasm for increasing hybrid courses across
the college,
with the stipulation that the hybrid components be beneficial to
students
and that assignments be of reasonable length and pertinent to
the students'
professional development. Students requested that instructors
plan online/in-
class schedules in collaboration with other instructors to
maximize fiexibility
O«rall.llhink the content of this
course is well-suited for a
a)mbinabon of boe-to-face and
oriiineactivttei
Overall. I timk it would be a good
idea if olher courses would
incorporate more online advities
Overall.lMnkitwwIdbeagood
idea if Ihe entire program i n w l ^
face-to-lace and online activites

45
0.0 0.5 10 1.5 2.0 25 3.0 35 4.0 45 50
oinalructors
Figure 5. Instructor and student responses to overarching, open-
ended questions.
and minimize confusion. In addition, students felt that the
online/in-class
schedule should be organized and disclosed to students at the
outset of
a course so they would have the opportunity to opt out of a
course with
online components when scheduling their semesters. In
addition, students
expressed frustrations with some technologies (such as trial
software) they felt
compromised their opportunities to succeed in an online
learning environment.
Instructor participants suggested that all instructors hold
students accountable
for the online work associated with any given course while
maintaining a
certain degree of flexibility, especially given students' busy
schedules and the
challenges they might face in learning new technologies.
Instructors also noted
that hybrid activities should not create additional work for
students, but should
replace less valuable work normally conducted in a face-to-face
setting. Finally,
instructors recommended that all instructors be clear, organized,
responsive,

and timely when responding to e-mail and other student
communications, such
as discussion boards.
The Web questionnaire also prompted students for information
or insights
they thought would be useful to the college regarding hybrid or
online
activities. A strong majority of students responded favorably
towards hybrid
instruction, but stated the college should proceed with caution.
Approximately
10% of student participants did not encourage the college to
offer more hybrid
courses or activities. This group of students felt that face-to-
face interaction,
rather than some online and some face-to-face interaction, was
more conducive
to their learning. These students also expressed frustrations that
they were
not made aware of the online components before opting in to the
course(s).
In general, student respondents thought that college instructors
should not
implement online activities without first obtaining the skills to
teach in an
online environment, committing to respond to students in a
timely manner, and
organizing their materials in a way that is conducive to online
instruction.

All instructor participants commended the college on its
exploration of
a hybrid degree program and recommended that as the college
progresses,
evaluative efforts continue in order to ensure that hybrid
instruction is
implemented in a way that best benefits student learning.
Instructors also
requested that more training opportunities be made available to
help them use
existing tools, integrate online activities, and effectively
collaborate with each
other.
IMPLICATIONS
During the process of reading, coding, and identifying emergent
themes
representing the three community perspectives, several
categories of
programmatic issues were noted as factors contributing to the
success of the
hybrid program. When these issues and implications were
reviewed with
instructor participants during a focus group, the instructor
participants
validated the implications and the identified themes were left
intact. These
implications are programmatic in nature and mostly address the
administration,
yet they impact the different identities within the hybrid degree
program
community. Addressing these recommendations will affect the
success of
instructor course design and student learning.

Develop Program Policy Supportive to Teaching and Learning
in Hybrid
Courses
When registering for courses, students were not informed that
some course
materials, activities, and assignments would be delivered
online. Some students
adjusted well to the hybrid delivery method, but others
expressed frustration
with the unexpected technology requirements and non-
traditional instructional
methods. With the help of administrators, the researchers made
use of a
course catalog footnote and existing Web site that alerts
students that they are
signing up for a hybrid course and explains how these courses
differ from more
traditional face-to-face classes.
It is our recommendation that when developing and promoting a
hybrid
degree program, expectations, instructional and communication
methods,
technical requirements, and benefits of combining the face-to-
face and online
learning environments be fully communicated to students prior
to registration.
Students can then make an informed decision as to whether the
hybrid format
meets their particular learning styles and preferences, schedule,
and other
needs. This communication could take place by providing
information about
the hybrid degree program in college marketing material, during
advising and

registration sessions, and in program or course orientations. In
such a manner,
instructors and students will have common understandings
regarding course
design and expectations, and students not wanting to participate
may opt out of
such courses.
Support the Creation of Common Procedures and Expectations
across
Courses
When the hybrid units were developed for this study, instructors
for each
of the courses did not collaborate to develop common class or
instructional
procedures. In some cases inconsistencies from course to course
caused student
confusion and frustration.
It is important to remember the student perspective when
developing a
hybrid program. Some common elements across courses could
positively
impact student understanding and feasibility. Instructor CoPs
should be
encouraged to discuss their class procedures and expectations in
order to
develop common procedures. This is not to say that all
instructors should have
identical procedures, but that collaboration for the purpose of

creating some
level of consistency will benefit students. Common procedures
and expectations
could be developed related to e-mail/discussion board use,
netiquette, use of
course announcements, how to handle a technology snow day
(Hitch, 2002),
technology assistance, method for instructor contact, frequency
and deadlines
for discussion board posts, mechanisms for work submission,
etc.
Allocate Face-to-Face and Online Time across Courses
Most of the students participating in this study enrolled in more
than one
course that used a hybrid format. Because the hybrid units did
not fall in the
same time period during the semester, student schedules were
not consistent
from week to week, causing frequent confusion and aggravation.
Using student
feedback, instructors worked with administrators to standardize
Wednesday
and Thursday as face-to-face days, leaving Monday, Tuesday
and Friday free for
student teaching, internships, and other student activities. This
simple solution
provided more structure for students and less confusion across
courses within
the same semester.
Although face-to-face and online activities should best fit the
needs of
a particular subject area and course (Veronikas & Shaughnessy,
2004),

this study suggests that faculty and administrative CoPs work
together to
coordinate a schedule that outlines specific face-to-face and
online days that
will accommodate students taking multiple hybrid classes in the
program.
Maximum flexibility for students will occur when all courses in
a given semester
follow a similar or complimentary pattern of online and face-to-
face days.
Support Instructor CoPs as they Refine and Adopt Technology
Tools
All instructor participants in this study received a basic
overview of online
technologies during a summer workshop on designing and
developing hybrid
courses. Still, instructors found it difficult to gain an in-depth
working
knowledge of the online tools and features commonly associated
with online
instruction. The design of activities was inhibited by their
limited knowledge
and familiarity with the available tools. Collaborative
conversations within
instructor CoPs about the functions and features of online tools
appeared to
increase the sophistication of technology use and instructional
design.

Students participating in the study clearly articulated their
preferences
toward certain instructional practices and activities. It was
evident that students
preferred more simplistic methods of delivery (instructor
presentations available
for effortless download), online interactions (straightforward
discussion
boards), and ease in work submission. Instructor CoPs should
discuss the use
of technology tools to support specific learning needs, but
technology that does
not enhance instruction should be reduced or eliminated.
As instructors within a CoP learn about technology tools and
their
instructional uses, they will develop activities that incorporate
the best of both
face-to-face and online delivery methods. A supportive
environment conducive
to exploration, collaboration and cooperation will result in
instructionally-
sound activities and shared practices which will contribute to
the overall quality
of the program. To support this professional development and
growth among
hybrid instructors, administrators should provide mechanisms
for faculty
to collaborate within their CoP and interact with others outside
their CoP,
including instructional designers and technology support staff.
Provide Instructional Design Training and Support for
Instructors
The online questionnaire used in this study prompted instructors
to refiect

on their hybrid units and identify successes as well as areas for
improvement.
The resulting data prompted the need for further professional
development
opportunities related to technology tools and delivery options.
Becoming a good hybrid instructor is a developmental process
and requires
continual nurturing and support in terms of the additional time
it takes to
develop and teach a hybrid course, as well as the adjustment to
delivering
materials, interacting with students, and designing activities for
a Web-based
environment (Kincannon, 2000). When asking instructors to
redesign a course
as a hybrid, administrators should recognize that this design and
development
process is akin to developing a new course, and instructors will
likely need
technology training.
As such, administrators need to support the professional
development of
instructors. This can take place in many ways, including
providing adequate
time over the course of several semesters to collaborate with
other hybrid
instructors, instructional designers, experienced colleagues,
technology trainers
and other personnel; soliciting help from other instructors or
institutions who
have more experience; providing hands-on training
opportunities or one-on-
one tutoring; and providing opportunities for instructors to

share their successes
with each other.
Provide Support for Students to Gain New Skills
Anecdotal evidence gathered during this study indicated that
many students
sought help from one another, upgraded from dial-up to faster
Internet
connections at home, accessed the wireless networks on campus
via laptops,
purchased home computers or laptops, and improved their
general technology
skills. It is likely that the need for efficiency in completing
online activities and
assignments drove these changes.
Although it is possible that hybrid degree programs will attract
more
technologically savvy and independent students, it should not be
assumed that
students who enroll in hybrid courses have critical technology
skills (Kvavik,
2005). Those who do not will be disadvantaged by the program
delivery
method. In order for students to focus on course content, it is
critical that
technology not be an obstacle to student access to course
materials and support
resources. As such, hybrid degree programs should identify and
require base-

level technology skills or offer training opportunities that
prepare students with
technology skills before classes begin (Gastfriend, Gowen, &
Layne, 2001).
These minimum technology skills should be communicated in
college materials,
advising sessions, and program or course orientations.
In addition, instructors should not assume that students have
experience
with the technologies used or that they have the ability to adopt
new skills
quickly. Even if students enter the program with a minimum set
of technology
skills, additional training or modeling during face-to-face
classes, and written
procedures and tutorials made available to all students will
decrease concerns
with technology and increase student ability to focus on
content.
Continually Evaluate the Program
Instructors in this study noted that as knowledge was created
and brokered
during seminars and brown bag discussions, through formative
feedback from
students, and via the summative online questionnaire,
evaluation practices
helped them better understand and assess the implications of
hybrid course
and program design. In addition to traditional course
evaluations, ongoing
program evaluation must be implemented to continually
improve instruction
and student learning in any hybrid degree program (Levin,

Levin, Buell, &
Waddoups, 2002). Also, program evaluation and assessment
must be based on
multiple methods and must meet specific standards to ensure
representation of
the program's impact on administrators, faculty and students
(Quality on the
line, 2000).
Normally a new program would undergo rigorous scrutiny, with
intense
ongoing evaluation procedures that lessen over time as issues
are worked out
and satisfaction levels stabilize. However, with technology
playing an integral
role in hybrid courses, as new tools are made available or new
uses for tools
become established, ongoing innovation and refinement of
courses, program
delivery, and program structure becomes more necessary than in
traditional
face-to-face design. If this is the case, then the call for ongoing
program
evaluation policy would be meaningful to administrators,
instructors, and to
students.
Granted, systematically embedding data-driven decision making
within a
hybrid program would require more resources of time and
money than one
might normally commit. Not planning at the onset for continual
innovation

and evaluation would be a mistake for a hybrid program not
wishing to
compromise quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the scope of this study was limited to nine instructors
and their
respective students, the results provide interesting and relevant
findings for those
interested in hybrid program design. The data collected indicate
areas of
success as well as areas for improvement, but overall the hybrid
design was
well received. The implications drawn represent a
comprehensive dataset
and demonstrate practices that must be thoughtfully considered
by program
developers before offering a hybrid degree program. While the
primary factor
in any instructional initiative remains the quality of the
instructional design
(Johnson & Aragon, 2002), the implications identified in this
article intend to
affect the success of students enrolled in a hybrid degree
program directly.
It is hoped that this study will spur further research in this area,
as over time
student profiles will include more technology-sawy populations
needing to
balance education with personal and professional obligations.
For institutions of
higher education wanting to offer innovate programs that

accommodate student
needs, hybrid degree programs may provide the answer. Any
such program
should be strategically designed, coUaboratively developed, and
implemented
within a community vested in offering a successful program.
Contributors
Audrey Amrein-Beardsley is an assistant professor in the
College of Teacher
Education and Leadership at Arizona State University. Dr.
Amrein-Beardsley
holds a PhD in Educational Policy and Research Methods and
specializes in
tests, assessment, and survey research. (Address: Audrey
Amrein-Beardsley, PO
Box 37100, MC 3151, Phoenix, AZ, 85069-7100, Phone:
602.543.6374; Fax :
602.543.7052 ; E-mail: [email protected])
Teresa S. Foulger is an assistant professor in the College of
Teacher Education
and Leadership at Arizona State University. Dr. Foulger holds
an EdD in
Educational Technology and specializes in technology-rich
environments
where collaboration, communities of practice, and innovative
professional
development models spur organizational change. (Address:
Teresa S. Foulger,
PO Box 37100, MC 3151, Phoenix, AZ, 85069-7100; Phone:
602.543.6420;
Fax : 602.543.7052; E-mail: [email protected])
Meredith Toth is an instructional designer with the Applied

Learning
Technologies Institute at Arizona State University. She holds a
M.A. in
Learning, Design, and Technology from Stanford University and
specializes in
technology integration in higher education. (Address: Meredith
Toth, PO Box
37100, MC 1051, Phoenix, AZ, 85069-7100 ; Phone:
602.543.3192 ; E-mail:
[email protected])
References
Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online
education in the
United States, 2005. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved
November 25, 2006,
from http://www.sloan-
c.org/publications/survey/pdf/growing_by_degrees.pdf
Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online
education in the
United States, 2006. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved March 3,
2007, from
http://www.sloan-
c.org/publications/survey/pdf/Making_the_Grade.pdf
Anastasiades, P. S., & Retalis, S. (2001, June). The educational
process in
the emerging information society: Conditions for the reversal of
the linear model
of education and the development of an open type hybrid

learning environment.
Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2001 World Conference on
Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Tampere,
Finland. ERIC
Document Number: ED466129. Retrieved April 28, 2006.
Ausburn, L. (2004). Course design elements most valued by
adult learners in
blended online education environments: An American
perspective. Educational
Media International, 41 {A), iTJ-iH.
Aycock, A., Garnham, C , & Kaleta, R. (2002). Lessons learned
from the
hybrid course project. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6).
Accessed online
April 12, 2005 at
http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham2.htm
Bailey, K., & Morais, D. (2004). Exploring the use of blended
learning in
tourism eduation. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism,
4{4), 23-36.
Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. (2003). Mediators of the
effectiveness of
online courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 46{A), 2 9 8 -
312.
Bennett, G., & Green, F. P. (2001). Student learning in the
online
environment: No significant diflFerence? Quest, 53, 1-13.
Benson, A. (2002). Using online learning to meet workforce

demand: A case
study of stakeholder influence. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 3(4),
4 4 3 ^ 5 2 .
Benson, A. (2003). Dimensions of quality in online degree
programs.
American Journal of Distance Education, 170), 145-159.
Blackboard (1997). Blackboard (Version 6.2) [Computer
software].
Washington, DC: Blackboard Inc.
Bonk, C , Olson, T., Wisher, R., & Orvis, K. (2002). Learning
from focus
groups: An examination of blended learning. Journal of
Distance Education,
77(3), 97-118.
Boyle, T , Bradley, C , Chalk, P, Jones, R., & Pickard, P (2003).
Using
blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to
program.
Journal of Educational Media, 28{2/3), 165-178.
Brown, J. S., &C Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of
information. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Buckley, D. (2002). Pursuit of the learning paradigm: Coupling
faculty
transformation and institutional change. Educause Review,
37(1), 28-38.
Cheng, H., Lehman, J., & Armstrong, P (1991). Comparison of
performance and attitude in traditional and computer conference

classes. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 5 1 - 6 4 .
Cousin, G., & Deepwell, F. (2005). Designs for network
learning: A
communities of practice perspective. Studies in Higher
Education, 30(1),
57-66.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive style and self-efficacy: Predicting
student
success in online distance education. American Journal of
Distance Education,
75(1), 21-38.
Donnelly, R. (2006). Blended problem-based learning for
teacher education:
Lessons learnt. Learning, Media, & Technology, 37(2), 93-116.
Dziuban, C , Hartman, J., & Moskal, P (2004). Blended
learning.
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Research Bulletin.
Accessed online
January 21, 2007, at
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf
Fotilger, T (Summer 2005). Innovating professional
development standards:

A shift to utilize communities of practice. Essays in Education,
14, Retrieved
September 20, 2006, from
http://www.usca.edu/essays/voll4summer2005.html
Garrison, D. R. (1985). Three generations of technological
innovation in
distance education. Distance Education, 6(2), 235—241.
Gastfriend, H. H., Gowen, S. A., & Layne, B. H. (2001,
November).
Transforming a lecture-based course to an Internet-based
course: A case study.
Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association
for Educational
Communications and Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. ERIC
Document Number:
ED470085. Retrieved April 28, 2006.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter
more than IQ.
New York: Bantam Books.
Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and
challenges of
blended learning environments. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of
information science and technology (pp. 253-259). Hershey, PA:
Idea Group.
Hitch, L. P. (2002). Being prepared for technology snow days.
ECAR
Research Bulletin, 24. Retrieved March, 2003, from
http://www.educause.edu/
LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ERB0224

Husmann, D. E., & Miller, M. T. (2001). Improving distance
education:
Perceptions of program administrators. Online Journal of
Distance Learning
Administration, IV(III). Retrieved September 23, 2006, from
http://vvTvw.
westga.edu/-distance/ojdla/articles/fall2001/husmann43.pdf
Iverson, J. O., & McPhee, R. D. (2002). Knowledge
management in
communities of practice: Being true to the communicative
character of
knowledge. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2),
259—266.
Johnson, S.D. & Aragon, S.R. (2002, Spring). An instructional
strategy
framework for online learning environments. Paper presented at
the Academy
of Human Resource Development (AHRD) Conference,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Retrieved April 28, 2006, from ERIC database.
Kincannon, J. M. (2002, April). From the classroom to the Web:
A study
of faculty change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
ERIC Document
Number: ED467096. Retrieved April 28, 2006.
Kuhn, T. (2002). Negotiating boundaries between scholars and
practitioners:
Knowledge, networks, and communities of practice.
Management
Communication Quarterly, 16{), 106-112.

Kvavik, R. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control:
How
students use technology. In D.G. Oblinger & J.L. Oblinger
(Eds.), Educating
the Net Generation (pp 7.1-7.20). Washington, DC: Educause.
Retrieved
January 8, 2005, from
http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/
LaRose, R., Gregg, J., & Eastin, M. (1998). Audiographic
telecourses for
the Web: An ex^crmcnx.. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 4(2).
Retrieved March 2, 2007, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue2/larose.html
Lave, J., &C Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral
participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Learning Technology Center. (2002, March 12). Learning
technology center:
Our project. Retrieved May 2005 from
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/LTC/our-
project.html
Leh, A. (2002). Action research on hybrid courses and their
online
communities. Educational Media International, 39(1), 31-38.
Levin, S. R., Levin, J. A., Buell, J. G. & Waddoups, G. L.

(2002).
Curriculum, Technology, and Educational Reform (CETER)
online: Evaluation
of an online master of education program. TechTrends, 46(5),
30—38.
Machtmes, K. & Asher, J. W (2000). A meta-analysis of the
effectiveness of
telecourses in distance education. The American Journal of
Distance Education,
7 4 ( 0 , 2 7 - 4 6 .
McCray, G. (2000). The hybrid course: Merging on-line
instruction and the
traditional classroom. Information Technology & Management,
1(4), p307-327.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core
concepts of
transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Ed.),
Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress
(pp. 3—33). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis (2"'' ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Misko, J. (1994). Flexible delivery: Will a client-focused
system mean better
learning^ KdA^idt: Adelaide National Centre for Vocational
Education
Research.
Moore, M. (1993). Is teaching like flying? A total systems view

of distance
cducdMon. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 1-10.
Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of
online and face-to-
face instruction. American Journal of Distance Education,
16(2), 99-113.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2'"' ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Olapiriyakul, K., & Scher, J. (2006). A guide to establishing
hybrid learning
courses: Employing information technology to create a new
learning experience,
and a case study. Internet & Higher Education, 9(4), 287-301.
O'Toole, J. M., & Absalom, D. (2003). The impact of blended
learning on
student outcomes: is there room on the horse for Vf/oii Journal
of Educational
Media, 28(215), 179-190.
Overbaugh, R., & Lin, S. (2006). Student characteristics, sense
of community,
and cognitive achievement in web-based and lab-based learning
environments.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 205-
223.
Parkinson, D., Greene, W , Kim, Y, & Marioni, J. (2003).

Emerging themes
of student satisfaction in a traditional course and a blended
distance course.
TechTrends, 47(4), 22-28.
Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the difference? A
review of
contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning
in higher education.
Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Accessed online on
February 16, 2007 at
http://www.ihep.org/Pubs/PDF/Difference.pdf
Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in internet-based
distance education.
(2000). Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education
Policy. Retrieved
September 16, 2006, from
http://www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf#search
=%22Quality%20on%20the%20line%20benchmarks%22
Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development
research
agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational
Technology Research and
Development, 52(4), 53-65.
RifFell, S., & Sibley, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to
improve
large undergraduate biology courses: An evaluation of a hybrid
course format.
Computers & Education, 44(3), 217-235.
Rogers, A. (2002). Teaching adults (3"* ed.). Philadelphia:
Open University

Press.
Russell, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon.
Chapel Hill, NC:
Office of Instructional Telecommunications, University of
North Carolina.
Sherer, P D., Shea, T. P, & Kristensen, E. (2003). Online
communities of
practice: A catalyst for faculty development. Innovative Higher
Education, 27(3),
183-194.
Sikora, A. (2002). A profile of participation in distance
education: 1999-2000.
Retrieved January 8, 2005, from National Center for Education
Statistics Web
site http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003154
Skylar, A., Higgins, K., Boone, R., Jones, P, Pierce, T , &
Gelfer, J.
(2005). Distance education: An exploration of alternative
methods and types
of instructional media in teacher education. Journal of Special
Education
Technology, 20(3), 25-33.
Snell, C , & Penn, E. (2005). Developing an online justice
studies degree
program: A case study. Journal of Criminal Jtistice Education,
16(), 18—36.
Summers, J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. (2005). A
comparison of student
achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional
face-to-face

statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233-250.
Sumsion, J., & Patterson, C. (2004). The emergence of
community in a
preservice teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20(6),
621-635.
Swenson, P, & Evans, M. (2003). Hybrid courses as learning
communities.
In S. Reisman (Ed.), Electronic learning communities issues and
practices (pp.
27-72). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and epistemic parameters in
communities
of practice. Organization Science, 16(2), 151-164.
Twigg, C. A. (1999). Improving learning & reducing costs:
Redesigning large-
enrollment courses. Center for Academic Transformation.
Retrieved April 20,
2005, from http://www.thencat.org/Monographs/monol.pdf
Twigg, C. A. (2001). Innovations in online learning: Moving
beyond no
significant difference. Taylor, NY: Pew Learning and
Technology.
Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs:
New models For
online learning. Educause Review, 35(5), 28-38.

Veronikas, S. W , & Shaughnessy, M.F. (2004). Teaching and
learning in
a hybrid world: An interview with Carol Twigg. Educause
Review, 39(July/
August), 51-62. Retrieved February, 2006, From
http://www.educause.edu/
apps/er/ermO4/ermO44.asp
Waits, T. & Lewis, L (2003). Distance education at degree-
grantingpostsecondary
institutions: 2000-2001 (NCES 2003-017). U.S. Department
oFEducation,
National Center For Education Statistics. Retrieved January 8,
2005 From http://
nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinFo.asp?pubid=2003017
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002).
Cultivating communities of
practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Wilke, D., & Vinton, L. (2006). Evaluation of the first web-
based advanced
standing MSW prograsn. Journal of Social Work Education,
42(3), 607-620.
Woods, R., Baker, J., & Hopper, D. (2004). Hybrid structures:
Faculty use and
perception oF web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-
Face instruction.
Internet & Higher Education, 7(4), 281-297.

Yang, Y, & Corneliotis, L.F. (2004, October). Ensuring Quality
in Online
Education Instruction: What Instructors Should Know? Paper
presented at the
Association For Educational Communications and Technology
conFerence, Chicago,
Illinois. ERIC Document Number: ED484990. Retrieved
September 23, 2006.
Young, S. (2006). Student views oFeffective online teaching in
higher education.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 65—77.
APPENDLX: STUDENT/INSTRUCTOR HYBRID
EVALUATION
QUESTIONNAIRE
PART I: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
What is your age? (Students only)
Where do you primarily access a
computer For schoolwork?
(Students onlv)
How do you most ohen col
Internet? (Students only)
Degree (Students only)
Current Semester

Running head SAMPLE PAPER 1 A Sample Paper for the Purpos.docx

Running head SAMPLE PAPER 1 A Sample Paper for the Purpos.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head SAMPLE PAPER 1 A Sample Paper for the Purpos.docx

Similar to Running head SAMPLE PAPER 1 A Sample Paper for the Purpos.docx (20)

More from jeanettehully

More from jeanettehully (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head SAMPLE PAPER 1 A Sample Paper for the Purpos.docx