Student Views of Hybrid Learning

References

• Allan, B. (2006). Biended learning: Tools for teaching and training. London: Facet Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Amrein-Beardsley, A., Foulger, T. S., & Toth, M. (2007). Examining the development of a hybrid degree program: Using student and instructor data to inform decision-making. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 331–357.
   Google Scholar
• Ausburn, L. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327–337.
   Google Scholar
• Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Beyth-Marom, R., Saporta, K., & Caspi, A. (2005). Synchronous vs. asynchronous tutorials: Factors affecting students’ preferences and choices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 245–262.
   Google Scholar
• Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspective, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Bonk, C., Kim, K. J., & Zeng, T. (2006). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 550–567). San Franscisco: Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Pickard, P. (2003, October). Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 165–178.
   Google Scholar
• Bullen, M. (2007). Making the transition to e-learning: Strategies and issues. London: Information Science Publising.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Coates, D., Humphreys, B. R., Kane, J., & Vachris, M. A. (2004). “No significant distance" between FTF and online instruction: Evidence from principles of economics. Economics of Education Review, 23(5), 533–546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657–663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dede, C. (2005). Planning for “neomillennial” learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 15.1–15.22). Boulder, CO: Educause.
   Google Scholar
• Donnelly, R. (2006). Blended problem-based learning for teacher education: Lessons learnt. Learning, Media, & Technology, 31(2), 93–116.
   Google Scholar
• Dowling, C., Godfrey, J. M., & Gyles, N. (2003). Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students’ learning outcomes? Accounting Education, 12(4), 373–391.
   Google Scholar
• Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P. D., & Sorg, S. (2005). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Blended Learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195–208). San Franscisco: Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Fjermestad, J., Hiltz, S. R., & Zhang, Y. (2005). Effectiveness for students: Comparisons of “in-seat” and ALN courses. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 39–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Fortune, M. F., Shifflett, B., & Sibley, R. E. (2006). A comparison of online (high tech) and traditional (high touch) learning in business communication courses in Silicon Valley. Journal of Education for Business, 81, 210–214.
   Google Scholar
• Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed). New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Frameworks, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Graff, M. (2003). Learning from Web-based instructional systems and cognitive style. British Journal of Education Technology, 34(4), 407–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, C. R. (2005). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, localdesigns (pp. 3–21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hartley, P., Woods, A., & Pill, M. (Eds.). (2005). Enhancing teaching in higher education: New approaches for improving student learning. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, C. P., & Burniske, R. W. (2005). The evolution of a hybrid classroom: Introducing online learning to educators in American Samoa. Tech-Trends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49, 24–29.
   Google Scholar
• Howell, S. L., Laws, R. D., & Lindsay, N. K. (2004). Reevaluating course completion in distance education: Avoiding the comparison between apples and oranges. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(4), 243–252.
   Google Scholar
• Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., & Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid course. In A. G. Picciano (Ed.), Blended learning: Research perspectives. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Q. (2008). Student satisfactions in four mixed courses in elementary teacher education program. Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 53–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y. (2007). A comparative study of learning styles between online and traditional students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 41–63.
   Google Scholar
• McCombs, B., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework fore-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–1600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, C. L., & Bond, N. (2004). Online compared to FTF teacher preparation for learning standards-based planning skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 345–361.
   Google Scholar
• Picciano, A. G. (Ed.) (2007). Blended learning: Research perspectives. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
   Google Scholar
• Reasons, S.,Valadares, K., & Slavkin, M. (2005). Questioning the hybrid model: Student outcomes in different course formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 9(1), 83–94.
   Google Scholar
• Riffell, S. K., & Sibley, D.F. (2004). Can hybrid course formats increase attendance in undergraduate environmental science courses? Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 33, 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Riffell, S., & Sibley, D. F. (2005). Using Web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: An evaluation of hybrid course format. Computers & Education, 44(3), 217–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, R. C. (2007). Cases on global e-learningpractices: Successes and pitfalls. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Shea, P., Li, C., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and Web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Summers, J., Waigandt, R., & Whittaker, T. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional FTF statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233–250.
   Google Scholar
• Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne and J. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 13–30). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
   Google Scholar
• Swenson, P. W., & Evans, M. (2003). Hybrid courses as learning communities. In S. Reisman, J. G. Flores, & D. Edge (Eds.), Electronic learning communities: Issues and practices (pp. 27–71). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Trinkle, D. A. (2005). The 361° model for transforming teaching and learning with technology. Educause Quarterly, 4, 18–26.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Vignare, K. (2002). Longitudinal success measures for online learning students at the Rochester Institute of Technology. In J. Bourne & Y. J. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction, 4(pp. 261–278). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
   Google Scholar
• Woods, R., Baker, J., & Hopper, D. (2004). Hybrid structures: Faculty use and perception of Web-based courseware as a supplement to FTF instruction. Internet & Higher Education, 7(4), 281–297.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139–151.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., Let, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar