What Might Online Delivery Teach Us About Blended Management Education? Prior Perspectives and Future Directions

Comparisons of Blended With Classroom and Online Management Education

Although educational technologists have engaged in considerable debate for at least two decades over whether a delivery medium influences learning and whether educational delivery mediums even should be examined comparatively (Bernard et al., 2004, 2009; Clark, 1994; Kozma, 1994), there are numerous comparative studies of business and management education in online, blended, and classroom-based formats. One possible explanation for this may be that unlike educational technologists, business school faculty members generally spend their doctoral training and early careers immersed in the literatures of their respective disciplines rather than in the area of instructional technology. As these scholars become interested in studying technology-mediated learning, comparing these alternative mediums to what they have known in their teaching may seem reasonable to them, to other business education research authors, and to much of the editorial functions of the learning and education journals in the business disciplines (Rynes & Brown, 2011; Sullivan, Baruch, & Schepmyer, 2010). Therefore, from the perspective of management education research practice, reviewing comparative studies is a reasonable first step for our review. Nevertheless, as we will see later in the article, this comparative orientation can generate attractive opportunities for future research.

To date, the few studies that have compared blended with online delivery in management education generally have shown favorable results for the blended format. Although initial studies indicated some less favorable results or no significant differences for blended offerings (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 2003; Bryant, Campbell, & Kerr, 2003; Haytko, 2001; Sauers & Walker, 2004), as learners and instructors have become more experienced with the technological aspects of the delivery format, blended courses have been shown to yield stronger learning motivation (Klein et al., 2006), higher skill development (Chen & Jones, 2007; Kovach, Miley, & Ramos, 2012; Priluck, 2004), and higher course performance (Clouse & Evans, 2003; Gratton-Lavoie & Stanley, 2009; Hamilton & Te, 2010; Keith & Simmers, 2013) relative to purely online and purely classroom-based offerings, even when examining more than one type of blend (Webb et al., 2005). However, more recent studies suggest no difference in learning outcomes, particularly when controlling for issues such as selection bias (Olitsky & Cosgrove, in press; Wiechowski & Washburn, 2014).

In contrast, purely online courses in management education generally have shown either no significant difference in learning outcomes or a migration toward equivalent outcomes (Arbaugh, 2000; Borthick & Jones, 2000; Friday, Friday-Stroud, Green, & Hill, 2006; Grandzol, 2004; Kock et al., 2007), with some less favorable outcome comparisons in quantitatively oriented courses (Anstine & Skidmore, 2005; Brown & Liedholm, 2002; Coates, Humphreys, Kane, & Vachris, 2004). Although comparison studies have shown online environments to yield more positive group cohesion and collaboration (Hansen, 2008; Heckman & Annabi, 2005), they also have shown lower learner satisfaction with the delivery medium (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001; Weber & Lennon, 2007).

Although most of these studies did not compare blended and online courses concurrently, and therefore do not allow us to make definitive conclusions, the collective findings from these studies suggest that there is at least the potential for blended courses to provide the touted “best of both worlds” in management education. Students do not appear to be as distraught with the technological characteristics of blended courses because, in part, they have the option of seeking answers to questions in person with either fellow learners or the instructor (Eveleth & Baker-Eveleth, 2003; Hwang & Arbaugh, 2009). As will be shown later in this article, opportunities for sustained collaborative cohesion, along with increased control over their individual learning, also may yield both more positive attitudes toward the format and higher learning outcomes.

Course Designs

To date, several conceptualizations and descriptive accounts of blended course design have been developed for management education. Originally derived for developing graduate-level courses in managerial accounting, Zabriskie and McNabb’s (2007) model for blended learning was first to determine the needs of all stakeholders (students, employers, instructors, university) and then to consider available technologies for providing the course. Only then were instructors to begin developing the course and determining which content would be delivered online and which would be addressed in the classroom. Sautter (2007) provided some guidelines for determining whether particular course activities should be conducted in a classroom or online. She contended that activities that required team cohesion or learner control should be conducted online, whereas activities that require skills in active listening, oral communication, and/or extemporaneous thinking were better served by a classroom setting. This approach to activity design was reflected in Ross and Rosenbloom’s (2011) recent narrative of redesigning a classroom undergraduate strategy course for blended delivery. Their approach advocates first having a clear understanding of why a move to a blended course is necessary, determining the essential course content and desired learning outcomes. After that, determining activities for the blend and creating new activities for the blend could be considered (they incorporated self-created student video presentations and moved to mini-case classroom discussions). Finally, they considered what needed to be done to ensure that the activities in one modality enhanced the effectiveness of the other, and discovered that creating a sense of social presence early in the course was particularly important for holding the two learning environments together. In online learning environments, social presence has come to be defined as the extent to which participants are socially and emotionally connected to each other (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003). This emphasis on connection suggests that activities not directly related to course content are important at the beginning of blended courses. The importance of social presence early in the course also is consistent with emerging research regarding online course effectiveness in management education (Arbaugh, 2013; Ke, 2010; Shea et al., 2010).

Unfortunately, such conceptualizations of process generally have not resulted in increases in the empirical study of blends. Our review yielded only one study that tested varieties of blends (Webb et al., 2005). With few exceptions (i.e., Chou & Chou, 2011; Drennan, Kennedy, & Pisarski, 2005), course blends are treated descriptively, with limited discussion of theoretical support or rationale for them beyond starting the course in a classroom setting, in part because that is the setting with which learners are most familiar (Chen & Jones, 2007; Colucci & Koppel, 2010; Vamosi, Pierce, & Slotkin, 2004). Such was the case whether the course had front-loaded classroom activities at its beginning, mixed online and classroom activities throughout the course (Bryant et al., 2003; Gratton-Lavoie & Stanley, 2009; Haytko, 2001; Hwang & Arbaugh, 2006; Klein et al., 2006; Stubbs, Martin, & Endlar, 2006), or neglected to mention the nature of the blend entirely (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 2003; Grzeda & Miller, 2009). However, the general lack of theoretical grounding of approaches to blended learning appears to apply to all disciplines and levels of education, not just college- and university-level business and management education research (Drysdale et al., 2013). These findings, or rather, the absence of their consideration, suggest that blend variety should be a primary conceptual and empirical consideration for future research in blended management education.

In contrast, although conceptual prescriptions for course design issues in fully online management education have received limited attention, design issues have received comparatively extensive empirical study. Research to date suggests that a primary design factor for effective graduate courses is that a course be designed to encourage participant interaction, particularly because course design appears to interact with instructor facilitation styles and group dynamics (Arbaugh, 2005; Cox, Carr, & Hall, 2004; Ivancevich et al., 2009; Millson & Wilemon, 2008). Rungtusanatham, Ellram, Siferd, and Salik (2004) conceptualized that higher-order thinking and double-loop learning would be focused primarily in graduate-level online courses; therefore, these courses should be designed to enhance both content knowledge and decision-making skills, and include high interaction and interaction timing flexibility, with faculty controlling the pace of learning. This conceptualization of delivery of online graduate management education has received empirical support from studies such as Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich’s (2006), which found that online MBA courses designed on instructor-based content dissemination and group-based learning activities were most strongly associated with learning outcomes and satisfaction with online courses. The importance of group-based interaction at the graduate level suggests several design features: the use of student groups that have continuity (Erez et al., 2013; Hodgson & Reynolds, 2005; Williams, Duray, & Reddy, 2006), an established body of knowledge from which to structure group activities (Benbunan-Fich & Arbaugh, 2006), and a variety of types of assignments (Arbaugh & Rau, 2007).

The results of recent studies, however, have begun to suggest that there may be other modes of interaction than peer-based that may influence online learning outcomes, and that instructors will have to be increasingly vigilant to manage their online class settings to keep learners from becoming overwhelmed with the volume of discussion postings (Ke, 2010; Kellogg & Smith, 2009; Rollag, 2010). Another course design approach that may address these trends, which are supported by at least preliminary evidence, is to begin with relatively simple activities to create rapport and mastery of the learning environment, and then move on to progressively more complex and difficult topics and activities (Allan & Lawless, 2003; Erez et al., 2013; Mariola & Manley, 2002).

Participant Attitudes and Usage of the Technology

Participant Interaction in Online and Blended Courses

Most research on online management education has found interaction between learners, fellow learners, and the instructor to be a prominent predictor of course outcomes, particularly at the graduate level (Arbaugh, 2002, 2005; Arbaugh & Rau, 2007; Benbunan-Fich & Arbaugh, 2006; Brower, 2003; Peltier, Drago, & Schibrowsky, 2003; Rollag, 2010). However, overparticipation in asynchronous class discussions is beginning to be a cause for concern at the graduate level (Ke, 2010; Rollag, 2010), quantitatively oriented courses may be more content-driven than peer interaction-driven (Kellogg & Smith, 2009), and more individualistic students may not view the courses as favorably (Hornik & Tupchiy, 2006). Positive student–student interaction experiences, particularly in the context of smaller student groups as subsets of the entire class, have been shown to help to create cohesiveness and trust among group members (Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007; Liu, Magjuka, & Lee, 2008; Williams et al., 2006).

Research on online management educators to date has focused on instructors’ prior experience and behaviors. Experienced online instructors explain more variance in graduate student learning than does course content (Arbaugh, 2005; Arbaugh & Rau, 2007; Drago, Peltier, & Sorensen, 2002). Even after controlling for course design effects, instructors still have significant influence on the extent to which graduate students are satisfied with the internet as an educational delivery medium (Arbaugh & Benbunan-Fich, 2006). However, these experience effects generally appear to be less important than behavioral effects in predicting course outcomes (Arbaugh, 2005; Arbaugh & Rau, 2007). Although the importance of the instructor feedback role has long been considered critical for success in online courses (Arbaugh, 2001; Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006; Peltier, Schibrowsky, & Drago, 2007; Simon, Haghirian, & Schlegelmilch, 2003), recent research in online management education supports the importance of the additional roles of interaction, facilitator, and participant. These roles appear to be particularly important at the graduate level (Arbaugh, 2010a; Arbaugh & Hwang, 2006; Kellogg & Smith, 2009; Millson & Wilemon, 2008). In a sample of 50 online MBA courses, Marks, Sibley, and Arbaugh (2005) found that although student–student interaction significantly predicted learning outcomes, the effect of size of student–instructor interaction was twice as large. Recent research also indicates that the formal instructional behaviors of content presenter and discussion facilitator influence not only perceptions of student learning, but also their involvement in the course as informal social participants (Arbaugh, 2010b; Liu et al., 2007; May & Short, 2003). The role of thought and interaction provocateur was proposed early on by Brower (2003) and has been supported by research finding that the amount of time the instructor was logged into a course site was negatively associated with course outcomes (Arbaugh, 2010b). These findings suggest that creating efficiencies through course design and organization prior to the beginning of the course and cultivating learner self-directedness may allow instructors to use their online time with a course more strategically by engaging in content-related discussions rather than initiating class discussions and addressing administrative queries (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Shea & Bidjerano, 2010).

These findings are not inconsistent with results of studies for blended courses, but the classroom element does appear to make the relationship of participant interaction to course outcomes more nuanced. Although some studies suggest that individualistically oriented or relatively competitive students may be less likely to engage fellow learners in blended environments regardless of medium and more likely to seek feedback directly from the instructor (Hwang & Arbaugh, 2009; Hwang & Francesco, 2010), there are numerous studies supporting the importance of learner–learner interaction in blended settings. Collaborative approaches have been associated with more numerous and more positive feedback-seeking behaviors among students in both online and classroom activity (Hwang & Arbaugh, 2006, 2009; Hwang & Francesco, 2010). Other studies have suggested that online group activities may cultivate characteristics such as learner social development, collaboration, and cohesiveness (Alrushiedat & Olfman, 2013; Baker-Eveleth, Eveleth, & Sarker, 2005; Dineen, 2005; Eveleth & Baker-Eveleth, 2003; Olson-Buchanan, Rechner, Sanchez, & Schmidtke, 2007; Proserpio & Gioia, 2007). At the graduate level, these characteristics have been found to lead to significantly greater integrative complexity of group discussions and the ability to implement rigorous collaborative course examinations (Wu, Bieber, & Hiltz, 2008; Yoo, Kanawattanachai, & Citurs, 2002). A possible explanation for these findings may be that attempts to make the environments mutually supporting, as called for by Ross and Rosenbloom (2011), may be particularly beneficial in cultivating learner collaboration. Therefore, this course structural aspect of managing the relationship between the mediums further supports the importance of instructors in blended settings and indicates that this may be a more complex role than merely managing classroom and online settings separately. Although learner–learner interaction may be enhanced by blended environments, recent research suggests that the facilitative and content leadership roles of the instructor that historically have been associated with positive fully online course experiences also may be important in blended settings (Daspit & D’Souza, 2012).

The New Comparison Study: Identifying Optimal Blends

Perhaps the most pressing issue regarding blended management education that emerges from this review is the need for further work in determining optimal blends. By “optimal blend,” we mean the combination of classroom-based and online activities that best promotes student learning (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). As noted earlier, comparative studies of blends are very limited (Webb et al., 2005), even beyond the context of management education (Hartman et al., 2000; Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Initial thoughts regarding blending online and classroom delivery were that no two blends were to be the same (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003; Singh, 2003). However, this approach has left instructors with not much beyond trial and error for considering how they might thoughtfully integrate their courses. Considering that one of the early pushes for blending was the opportunity for increased cost effectiveness (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003; Graham, 2006), it is somewhat surprising that we do not have more theoretically grounded and empirically driven guidelines around which instructors can focus their attention more efficiently for thoughtfully blending their offerings. The resulting lack of guidance that has emerged from this “laissez-faire” approach to developing and disseminating the results of blends may be one of the reasons that many instructors sense a lack of support when trying to teach in blended formats (Ocak, 2011). Considering that current studies of student delivery mode preference suggest that graduate business students have some comparable priorities for their preferences regarding online versus regular face to face delivery (instructor contact, educational benefits), but significantly different priorities compared with intensive face-to-face delivery modes (flexibility and travel), the question of an optimal blend also appears to have practical relevance for students (Ladyshewsky & Taplin, 2013).

Another factor in the lack of comparative studies of blends could be from an unintended consequence of calls to end comparative studies of online and classroom-based settings (Arbaugh et al., 2009; Bernard et al. 2009). This conclusion would be unfortunate, especially because Bernard et al. (2009) also argued that comparative studies within respective delivery media were, in fact, necessary for research going forward, and Arbaugh et al. (2009) specifically called for more research into blends that are most beneficial by discipline and topic area. Unfortunately, these more specific calls have yet to be heeded by management education researchers, or, for that matter, educational researchers in other disciplines (L. R. Halverson, personal communication, January 18-27, 2013). Therefore, rather than being late to the party, management educators that experiment with varying degrees of blends and report on the results of those blends would be providing a great service not only to both management educators and management education researchers, but also to the broader community of scholars and educators interested in approaches to blended learning.

Although the lack of research on comparative blends may be the biggest gap in the literature on blended management education, it also is the one where advances based on previous work in online settings could come most quickly. Conceptual and methodological perspectives on this research stream could be pursued as a logical extension of the substantial literature that compares online and classroom-based course offerings in business education (Arbaugh et al., 2009; Hansen, 2008; Kock et al., 2007). Such an approach also may have a broader benefit of helping to address general concerns regarding the lack of theoretical grounds for developing blends (Drysdale et al., 2013). Another benefit of considering the broader literature on blended learning would be the ability to provide conceptually justifiable and aesthetic rationale for using the term blended rather than hybrid. Definitionally, blended focuses on developing well-balanced combinations, and hybrid focuses on piecing together diverse and incongruous elements (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Given these definitional differences, seeking optimal combinations appears to be a question that flows naturally from blended environments, but that may not be the case when examining hybrid ones.

Although we can address theoretical and methodological issues, at least initially, through borrowing from prior studies of online management education and other disciplines, investigating optimal blends for management education will require dedicated work to develop and conduct multisection studies. Such studies could be designed to examine content selection for blends, content sequencing, and/or structuring of student activities. Those scholars willing and able to create such studies would provide a beneficial service to management educators. In addition to helping reduce student and educator frustration by helping to identify poor or less than optimal blends, such studies could be extended to address each of the areas for future research previously mentioned. Needless to say, such pioneering research also could be professionally beneficial for those who pursue it.

Can We Have More Contributions From or Linkages to Classroom-Based Researchers?

Another pressing challenge of the broader stream of research in blended learning is that, to date, thought leadership regarding the phenomenon is somewhat one-directional. The leading scholars in this area tend to come from backgrounds in educational technology, distance education, and/or online teaching and learning, such as Randy Garrison, Charles Graham, Curtis Bonk, and Charles Dziuban (Halverson et al., 2012). This intellectual weighting toward the virtual side of the blend suggests that classroom-based activities are receiving less attention in blending prescriptions than perhaps is warranted. In practice, this unevenness of attention is demonstrated by lack of description of the nature of blends, and those studies that do provide descriptions tend to discuss only the online components of the course.

However, classroom-based researchers actually may be studying this phenomenon but using different terminology to describe it. Emerging definitions of “flipped classrooms” indicate that activities such as practice exercises, group-based problem solving, and Q&A sessions occur during classroom-based meetings, and video lectures and individual quizzes and practice exercises take place outside of class, usually accessed via some type of online platform (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Bruff, Fisher, McEwen, & Smith, 2013). Could it be that the term flipped classroom becomes classroom instruction researcher-speak for blended learning? We are beginning to see work in business education research that incorporates these terms (Asarta & Schmidt, 2013; Brink, 2013). Integrating these streams would bring benefits to both. In addition to the substantial intellectual heft that online delivery scholars bring to blended learning, categorization approaches of classroom and online activities applied to early reviews of flipped classroom research could help provide stronger framing for optimal blends (Bishop & Verleger, 2013).

In addition to the chance for integrating two emerging literature streams, this also presents an opportunity for management education scholars to contribute to this literature from their streams of expertise (Arbaugh, DeArmond, & Rau, 2013). Communities of established scholars in areas such as experiential learning (Kayes, 2002; Kenworthy & Fornaciari, 2010), critical management education (Cunliffe, 2004; Reynolds, 1998), and student team management (Andre, 2011; Bacon, Stewart, & Silver, 1999; Leigh, Beatty, & Szwed, 2008) give management educators opportunities to draw from these literature bases to help ensure that the discipline’s sizeable knowledge base on online teaching and learning (Arbaugh et al., 2010) is not the only literature considered when developing prescriptions for blending coverage of management-related topics. Initial work on blends in management education research has focused on embedding virtual activities into classroom-based courses (Bull Schaefer & Erskine, 2012; Clark & Gibb, 2006; Daspit & D’Souza, 2012). Could the next step in this progression be incorporating classroom-based management education research into experimenting with elements of online courses to determine whether they may be better conducted in face-to-face settings?

How Do Instructor Roles Differ in Blended Settings?

Although research about instructors in management education generally has lagged relative to research on issues of content, technique, or students (Rubin & Dierdorff, 2013; Rynes & Brown, 2011), studies of online environments have benefitted from greater focus on instructors. Emerging research provides support for the idea that online management educators have roles as social actors, discussion facilitators, and content experts (Arbaugh, 2010b, 2013; Brower, 2003; Comer & Lenaghan, 2013; Liu et al., 2007; Rollag, 2010; Yoo et al., 2002). Although such roles also exist in classroom settings, we know little about the extent to which the expression of these roles differs from online or classroom environments in blended settings. The importance of peer support on attitudes toward delivery technology and the association of learner–learner interaction with positive course outcomes in blended environments suggests that there may be a different effect from the blended environment than there would be from either learning environment conducted separately, which suggests that instructors may have to manage these courses differently than they do for classroom-based or purely online courses (Dineen, 2005; Martins & Kellermanns, 2004; Ross & Rosenbloom, 2011; Wu et al., 2008). This consideration of the nature of instructor roles in blended environments raises several potential questions. Does the emphasis on these behaviors in the respective mediums change as blend composition changes? Are some of these roles more important than others, depending on the delivery medium? What strategies can instructors employ to ensure that blended courses are conducted in a way that does not result in having to teach the equivalent of two class sections for a single course (Ocak, 2011)? What instructor characteristics, if any, influence the composition of optimal blends (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003)? Ross and Rosenbloom’s (2011) study provides initial insights into such questions from a design perspective, and we encourage other scholars to build on their work.

Does Subject Matter Impact Blend Effectiveness?

Along with the potential for instructor effects, it is possible that the findings regarding group cohesiveness and performance in blended environments may be moderated by academic discipline. For example, there is some evidence that students in quantitatively oriented courses may be using the learning environment primarily to engage content rather than each other (Brink, 2013; De Lange et al., 2003; Wells, De Lange, & Fieger, 2008). This may explain, in part, why realistic simulation tools have been received so favorably in such settings (Garvey & Buckley, 2010; Ford et al., 2007). Although these findings are consistent with research on the importance of learner control in blended settings, they also suggest at least the possibility that the importance of peer-based learning may not be consistent across the entire business school. In fact, many of the studies finding support for the influence of peers in blended environments have examined courses from the management discipline. Fortunately, future researchers interested in this issue will have an emerging literature on subject matter effects in management education (Arbaugh, 2013; Burke & Moore, 2003; Gaver & Berge, 2010; Kellogg & Smith, 2009), which they could use to help frame their studies.

Do Undergraduates and MBA Students Perform and Benefit Differently in Blended Settings?

Another potential implication of the lack of studies that examine both learning environments is a bifurcation of results by degree program level. As noted earlier in the review, to date, research on blended management education is decidedly weighted toward undergraduate settings. Conversely, for purely online environments, the volume of empirical studies is decidedly weighted toward MBA settings (Arbaugh, 2010a). Therefore, the review’s findings regarding the importance of learner control and group cohesion and collaboration may be a general function of effective undergraduate settings (Alshare, Freeze, Lane, & Wen, 2011; Arbaugh, 2010a), and MBAs may prefer blends to purely classroom settings due to their relative time and location convenience (Arbaugh & Duray, 2002; Jones & Chen, 2008; Wilson, 2011). Therefore, this research stream would benefit greatly from studies that examined blends in both undergraduate- and graduate-level management education settings to help determine whether and how the nature of blends should vary for these environments.

Do Individual Characteristics Matter in Blended Environments?

One of the challenges of studying blended learning is determining the extent to which the findings are the result of the blend versus other factors (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005). For example, some scholars have raised the possibility that the finding supporting comparatively positive learning outcomes for blended learners actually may be indicating learner characteristics such as self-efficacy, motivation, or cognitive absorption, which may have led them to be stronger learners regardless of the course format (Alshare et al., 2011; Johnson, Hornik, & Salas, 2008; Johnson, Top, & Yukselturk, 2011; Saade, 2007; Simmering, Posey, & Piccoli, 2009; Van der Merwe, 2011). Granted, studies such as Klein et al.’s (2006) that consider the interaction of learner characteristics and the delivery format help to diminish such concerns, but this issue underscores the importance of recent calls for further consideration of moderating effects in studies of online and blended management education (Arbaugh & Hwang, 2013). Studies that consider these individual effects would be useful for helping business schools determine whether they should encourage or discourage students from taking blended offerings, as opposed to purely classroom-based or online environments.