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

Abstract

Although the term has roots in the training and development literature, blended learning has only recently begun to be studied in management education. This article examines the literatures of blended and fully online management education to determine whether there are factors that may influence instructional effectiveness that are unique to blended learning. The review provides tentative support for the premise that opportunities for enhanced learner control of the learning process and group cohesiveness and collaboration may be distinguishing advantages of blended learning in management education. The article concludes by discussing pressing research issues, including discovering optimal blends, differentiating from or integrating blending with the concept of “flipped classrooms,” distinguishing the effects of blending from other potential confounds, determining the effects of subject matter and program level, and seeking increased thought leadership on blended perspectives from classroom-based management education scholars.

Keywords

blended instruction online teaching and learning course design

The last decade has seen a boom in the study and application of online delivery in management education (Allen & Seaman, 2011; Arbaugh & Hwang, 2013; Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006), with increasing interest in course offerings that blend online and classroom-based delivery approaches in higher education (Allen, Seaman, & Garrett, 2007; Bonk & Graham, 2006; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Halverson, Graham, Spring, & Drysdale, 2012). About half of the 4-year institutions in the United States reported offering blended courses by 2007, including 64% of those schools with 10,000 or more students (Parsad, Lewis, & Tice, 2008), and momentum for this approach to delivery of education appears to be accelerating all over the world (Drysdale, Graham, Spring, & Halverson, 2013). In fact, some forecasts predict that the number of U.S. students taking traditional classroom-based courses could decline from 14.1 million in 2010 to 4.1 million by 2015 (Moskal, Dziuban, & Hartman, 2013). Although defining what exactly constitutes a blended learning environment has been a challenge (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005), consensus is emerging that a blended course combines online learning with traditional face-to-face class activities in an intentional, pedagogically valuable manner where between 20% and 79% of course content and activities are delivered online (Allen et al., 2007; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Graham, 2006).

Although influence of this interest has been seen in research on online delivery in management education (Arbaugh et al., 2009; Daspit & D’Souza, 2012; Hwang & Francesco, 2010), blended approaches have received considerably less attention in the management education literature (Arbaugh, Desai, Rau, & Sridhar, 2010). Considering that the term may have roots in the organizational training and development literature (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005; Reay, 2001), the comparative lack of attention given to it by management education scholars is somewhat ironic. However, as online delivery moves increasingly into undergraduate business education settings (Grandzol & Grandzol, 2010; Hansen, 2008; Ivancevich, Gilbert, & Konopaske, 2009; Proserpio & Gioia, 2007), considerations of appropriate blends take on increasing importance for at least three reasons (Chou & Chou, 2011; Ross & Rosenbloom, 2011; Wilson, 2011). First, online delivery may be more amenable to graduate education because these learners generally have greater practice in self-regulation and in acquiring learning strategies, and therefore can adjust to online environments relatively quickly (Akyol & Garrison, 2011; Arbaugh, 2004, 2014; Comer & Lenaghan, 2013; Shea & Bidjerano, 2010, 2012). With such prior experience, graduate-level learners can recognize approaches to teaching presence through virtual environments more readily than can relatively novice learners (Arbaugh & Hwang, 2006; Rienties, Giesbers, Tempelaar, & Lygo-Baker, 2013). Without the cues provided through the relatively rich media of face-to-face contact, online activities in the hands of novice learners can descend into self-directed malaise (Daymont & Blau, 2011; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Second, blends could be used to help undergraduate students assimilate more quickly to online environments. Some comparative studies of online and classroom undergraduate business settings have found that although perceived ambiguity is higher and grades are lower in online courses than in classroom-based settings early in the course, these differences no longer existed by the end of the course (Kock, Verville, & Garza, 2007). This progression suggests that blends provide the possibility for accelerating the process by which novice learners become more comfortable with learning online. Third, changes in the nature of work suggest that undergraduate students become more accustomed to working virtually (Daspit & D’Souza, 2012; Dineen, 2005; McDonald, 2011). The rise of virtual workplaces and teams suggests that for professional development reasons, some course activities that historically have been conducted face to face should be conducted online.

Although publications devoted to the phenomenon suggest that research in blended learning is a relatively new topic (Halverson et al., 2012; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003), closer examination of the management education literature suggests that studies of blended learning actually have been taking place for some time. Initial research suggested that introducing online elements or exercises into classroom-based courses was positively associated with course outcomes in studies of management education (Balotsky & Christensen, 2004; Clouse & Evans, 2003; Hwang & Arbaugh, 2006, 2009; Webb, Gill, & Poe, 2005), and blended courses have fared well in studies comparing them with both purely classroom and purely online courses (Klein, Noe, & Wang, 2006; Terry, 2007; Webb et al., 2005). Other benefits of blending in management education include increased confidence in working in virtual project teams (Bull Schaefer & Erskine, 2012; Clark & Gibb, 2006; Dineen, 2005), increased learner control of the educational experience (Bull Schaefer & Erskine, 2012; Klein et al., 2006), and enhanced dialogue skill development (Eveleth & Baker-Eveleth, 2003).

In spite of this increased research attention, many questions about blended learning in management education continue to persist (Arbaugh et al., 2010). Management education research generally has failed to be explicit regarding whether a course is purely online or blended until very recently (Hwang & Arbaugh, 2009; Hwang & Francesco, 2010; Klein et al., 2006). This lack of specificity in denoting the degree of blending within courses has limited the management education literature’s ability to determine the conditions under which online or blended learning is most appropriate (Kellogg & Smith, 2009). This inability to provide guidance to educators and administrators leaves those practitioners in the position of having to make decisions based on factors such as personal preference, institutional convenience, administrative edict, and access, rather than necessarily what is best for the learners.

Therefore, in this article, we compare the literatures on online and blended learning in management education to identify areas of similarity and difference in design and delivery of these learning modes. By identifying these differences, we seek to help create an initial research framework unique to blended learning in management education. From this framework, we then identify this domain’s most pressing topics so that researchers with potential interests in blended management education know where to target their efforts to accelerate the development of future studies with hopes that educators can implement appropriate blends more quickly rather than having to appropriate them through extended periods of trial and error.

The remainder of the article proceeds as follows. We open our discussion by providing an overview of the more prominent pieces on blended learning in higher education to provide context for considering specific applications to management education. Next, after describing our review protocol, we briefly review the results of comparative studies between online and blended courses. We then compare findings from these literatures regarding course designs, student characteristics, and students’ attitudes toward and usage of the delivery mediums. We conclude the article with our recommendations regarding the most pressing areas for future research, specifically the need to identify optimal blends, either differentiating from or integrating with the concept of “flipped classrooms,” and further consideration of contextual factors such as subject matter and degree program level. We hope that the ideas presented in the article will be helpful, both for scholars seeking how to best contribute to the literature of online and blended management education and for instructors contemplating how to best blend their own courses.

Blended Learning in Higher Education

To frame future directions for the study of blended approaches in management education, it is helpful first to provide the broader context of research on blended learning. Although the elements necessary for blending approaches to educational delivery have existed for some time (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Garrison & Vaughn, 2008; Moskal et al., 2013; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003), serious consideration of what course activities should be blended and how to do so have emerged only in the last decade. Initial conversations of blends considered not only delivery mediums, but also types of learning, content, pedagogy, and participants (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003; Singh, 2003). However, for operational purposes, blended learning has come to be defined as educational experiences delivered through the thoughtful combination of face-to-face and online activities (Drysdale et al., 2013; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Graham, 2006; Ocak, 2011; Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Although some early authors have criticized this definition for focusing more on instruction than on learning (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005), others have noted that the approach allows instructors to change how class time is used to better tailor opportunities for student learning and provide learners with increased control over their learning experience by allowing them to decide what material they will study and how they will study it (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Specifically, blended approaches have been sought to allow the advantages of thoughtful and objective consideration of complex topics and questionable ideas associated with online teaching and learning with the spontaneity and greater media richness of face-to-face settings (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003; Rovai & Jordan, 2004).

Although much has been made of the potential of blended learning to provide the “best of both worlds” of educational delivery, and early comparative studies suggested positive course outcomes relative to both purely classroom-based and purely online courses (Hartman, Dziuban, & Moskal, 2000; Rovai & Jordan, 2004), subsequent meta-analytic work on studies of blended learning that employed experimental and quasi-experimental designs suggests that the jury still may be out on the comparative effectiveness of blended approaches. An initial meta-analytic study of blended and purely online training or education found that blended learning yielded 13% greater effectiveness for conveying declarative knowledge and 20% greater effectiveness for procedural knowledge over purely online training, but learner satisfaction was 6% higher for online training than for blended offerings (Sitzmann et al., 2006). In an examination of studies that employed student, instructor, and/or content interaction interventions, Bernard et al. (2009) found no differences between blended, online, and classroom-based courses regarding the effectiveness of those interventions, and also suggested that this finding may be due to the small number of studies (7) in their analysis that examined blended courses. Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, and Jones (2010) had a larger number of blended studies in their meta-analysis, and found that blended courses demonstrated stronger learning outcomes than face-to-face courses. However, they also found that outcomes for blended offerings and purely online courses tended to be comparable. They also noted that the positive effects associated with blended learning may not be attributable to the medium because of features such as additional learning time provided and other instructional elements added in these settings that were not associated with the control conditions. Therefore, the advantages of blended learning environments may reflect differences in content, pedagogy, or learning time rather than the delivery medium.

Because educational research in the business disciplines tends first to draw from work in its respective disciplinary area and then to broaden its perspective to draw from educational research in other settings (Arbaugh et al., 2009), management education researchers interested in blended learning are only beginning to draw from these foundational works for framing their studies. Also, because pure experimental designs often are not feasible in management education settings, these works tend to not be included in those recent meta-analytic studies (Arbaugh, Hwang, & Leisen Pollack, 2011). That said, our review of blended learning in management education will show that scholars have been drawing from the educational research of their own disciplines and building on conclusions from research in online environments to construct their own distinctive body of knowledge.

Literature Review Protocol

Having provided the broader context of blended learning research and how the work in the area from management education fits into it (or perhaps more accurately, develops independently and assimilates over time), we now discuss the development of parameters for our literature review. This article is developed from an ongoing systematic review of articles in business education that have examined virtual learning environments, including both fully online and blended teaching and learning settings. This comprehensive search for peer-reviewed articles published after January 1, 2000, began in September 2006, and to date has identified articles published through December 2013. The databases examined in the review include ABI/Inform, EBSCO Business Full Text, EBSCO Business Source Premier, and Science Direct. Terminology used in the search is provided in Table 1. To supplement this review, the primary educational research journals for each business discipline dating back to 2000 as identified in the journals database published in Academy of Management Learning and Education were included in the review (Whetten, 2008). Using this approach, to date we have identified at least 338 peer-reviewed articles that examined online and/or blended learning in business and management education. Regarding empirical studies of blended learning, we found 44 studies that focused on undergraduate students, 12 that focused on MBA students, 2 that examined both, 1 that did not designate student program level, and 1 that focused on instructors.

Table 1.

Terms Used in the Literature Search.

Disciplines
• Business
• Management
• Finance
• Accounting
• Marketing
• Information Systems
• Operations/Supply Chain Management
• Economics

Search terms for online	Search terms for learning

• Blended	• Education
• Technology-mediated	• Learning
• Distance	• Teaching
• On-line	• Instruction
• Virtual	• Courses
• Web-based
• E
• Hybrid

When comparing this data set to criteria for levels of evidence for systematic reviews in management developed by Reay, Berta, and Kohn (2009), most of the articles in our review constitute either Level 3 (multi-course and/or large sample studies) or Level 4 (small-sample, single-site studies), with limited numbers of articles constituting Level 1 (meta-analysis), Level 2 (systematic and/or comprehensive and replicable literature reviews), and Level 5 (descriptive and/or self-report studies). We provide these levels of evidence and example articles in Table 2.

Table 2.

Levels of Evidence Identified in the Literature Search.

Level of evidence	Generated by	Examples from the review
1	Randomized experimental trials or meta-analyses	Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher (2006)
2	A high-quality literature review that is replicable and comprehensive and provides a synthesis and actionable recommendations predicated on the synthesis or a systematic literature review.	Arbaugh, Desai, Rau, & Sridhar (2010); Arbaugh et al. (2009); Millson & Wilemon (2008)
3	Comparative, multicourse case studies or large-sample quantitative studies involving data collected from more than one site (course, program, and/or institution).	Alshare, Freeze, Lane, & Wen (2011); Arbaugh (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2010b, 2013); Arbaugh & Benbunan-Fich (2006), Arbaugh & Rau (2007); Benbunan-Fich & Arbaugh (2006); Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz (2003); Brown & Liedholm (2002); Coates, Humphreys, Kane, & Vachris (2004); Davis & Wong (2007); De Lange, Suwardy, & Mavondo (2003); Drago, Peltier, & Sorensen (2002); Drennan, Kennedy, & Pisarski (2005); Eom, Wen, & Ashill (2006); Friday, Friday-Stroud, Green, & Hill (2006); Gratton-Lavoie & Stanley (2009); Hornik & Tupchiy (2006); Hwang & Arbaugh (2006, 2009); Hwang & Francesco (2010); Ke (2010); Klein, Noe, & Wang (2006); Liu, Magjuka, & Lee (2008); Marks, Sibley, & Arbaugh (2005); Martins & Kellermanns (2004); Padilla-Melendez, Garrido-Moreno, & Del Aguila Obra (2008); Peltier, Drago, & Schibrowsky (2003); Peltier, Schibrowsky, & Drago (2007); Sauers & Walker (2004); Selim Ahmed (2010); Shea et al. (2010); Stoel & Lee (2003); Webb, Gill, & Poe (2005); Weber & Lennon (2007); Williams, Duray, & Reddy (2006); Wu, Bieber, & Hiltz (2008)
4	Small-sample, single-site qualitative or quantitative studies. Studies are theoretically motivated and are completed by trained researchers.	Allan & Lawless (2003); Anstine & Skidmore (2005); Arbaugh (2000); Asarta & Schmidt (2013); Baker-Eveleth, Eveleth, & Sarker (2005); Baugher, Varanelli, & Weisbord (2003); Borthick & Jones (2000); Brower (2003); Bryant, Campbell, & Kerr (2003); Chen & Jones (2007); Chou & Chou (2011); Clouse & Evans (2003); Cox, Carr, & Hall (2004); Daspit & D’Souza (2012); Dineen (2005); Eveleth & Baker-Eveleth (2003); Geddes (2009); Grzeda & Miller (2009); Hamilton & Te (2010); Hansen (2008); Haytko (2001); Heckman & Annabi (2005); Hu (2009); Jones & Chen (2008); Kellogg & Smith (2009); Kock, Verville, & Garza (2007); Kovach, Miley, & Ramos (2012); Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives (2001); Priluck (2004); Saade (2007); Saade & Bahli (2005); Simon, Haghirian, & Schlegelmilch (2003); Vamosi, Pierce, & Slotkin (2004); Van der Merwe (2011); Wagner & Ip (2009); Wilson (2003); Yoo, Kanawattanachai, & Citurs (2002)
5	Descriptive studies and/or self-report stories. Generally include observations, admonitions and recommendations of import to instructors and/or administrators.	Ford, Kent, & Devoto (2007); Garvey & Buckley (2010); Grandzol (2004); Ke (2010); Mariola & Manley (2002); Olson-Buchanan, Rechner, Sanchez, & Schmidtke (2007); Rollag (2010); Ross & Rosenbloom (2011); Stubbs, Martin, & Endlar (2006); Wilson (2011)
6	The opinion of respected authorities or expert communities without additional data. Some articles offer anecdotal evidence as a means of supporting expressed opinions.	Numerous types available, but none considered for this review.

Source. Adapted from Reay, Berta, and Kohn (2009).

Results of the Literature Review

On completing the review of these studies of blended management education, several general observations emerge. First, although blended formats tend to be viewed favorably relative to online offerings, researchers tend to present blended designs descriptively rather than as theoretically derived and tested. Second, learner attitudes toward delivery technology may be more subject to peer influence in blended environments than in purely online settings. Third, although the technological characteristics of the delivery formats may be similar, the element of learner control of the learning environment appears to be more salient in blended settings, perhaps because of the opportunities provided to influence peer opinion offered by face-to-face meetings. We probe these observations further in the following section.

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

Influences on Learner Attitudes Toward the Technology Platform

One noteworthy difference between the online and blended literatures is the attention and influence that fellow course participants have in shaping learner attitudes toward the technology in blended environments. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been the dominant theoretical lens through which attitudes toward technology have been examined in studies of both online and blended environments in management education (Arbaugh et al., 2009; Padilla-Melendez, del Aguila Obra, & Garrido-Moreno, 2013). Most of the studies that have examined TAM in either environment have found perceived usefulness of the technology to be a stronger direct predictor of attitudes toward the technology or of actual usage (Arbaugh, 2005; Drennan et al., 2005; Landry, Griffeth, & Hartman, 2006; Padilla-Melendez, Garrido-Moreno, & del Aguila Obra, 2008; Padilla-Melendez et al., 2013), and that TAM predicts learner satisfaction with the delivery medium (Arbaugh, 2004, 2005; Landry et al., 2006; Stoel & Lee, 2003). However, peer encouragement (Martins & Kellermanns, 2004) and positive instructor attitudes toward the technology (Martins & Kellermanns, 2004; Selim Ahmed, 2010) have been found to be important factors associated with learner attitude and usage of learning management systems in blended environments. Although fellow participants may at least indirectly influence learner attitudes toward the learning environment (as will be discussed in the upcoming section on participant interaction), studies to date in purely online settings suggest that the characteristics of the system are the primary influences on learner attitudes toward the technology (Davis & Wong, 2007; Saade, 2007; Saade & Bahli, 2005).

Learning Management System (LMS) Usage Behavior

The literature also suggests differences in the role usage behavior plays in online and blended environments. Although there is evidence that consistency rather than intensity of system usage may better predict learning outcomes in both settings (Arbaugh, 2005, 2010b; Asarta & Schmidt, 2013; Baugher, Varanelli, & Weisbord, 2003; Hwang & Arbaugh, 2006), time on task and learner control of the pace of learning afforded by the placement of materials in the LMS have received greater emphasis in studies of blended learning and have been found both to be attractive features of these courses and to influence learning motivation and outcomes. Several studies of blended learning environments in management education settings have found that increased time on task was associated with higher learning outcomes (Chou & Chou, 2011; Van der Merwe, 2011; Wilson, 2003); however, recent studies suggest that the consistency and timing of accessing online materials may be more significant predictors of learning outcomes than is the amount of time spent accessing them (Asarta & Schmidt, 2013). The opportunity to create simulated features of work environments also has allowed instructors to introduce realistic work-related features into blended courses, particularly at the undergraduate level (Ford, Kent, & Devoto, 2007; Garvey & Buckley, 2010; Hu, 2009; Wagner & Ip, 2009). Although these studies did not consider whether such features also could be introduced into fully online courses, the initial learning curves students had to navigate using these suggested that adding the complexity of online communication may have been overwhelming for them. Blended environments also have been associated with increased student self-monitoring and feedback seeking, which in turn increases opportunities for self-directed learning (Chou & Chou, 2011; De Lange, Suwardy, & Mavondo, 2003; Geddes, 2009; Klein et al., 2006).

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).

Unanswered Questions and Future Directions

Based on our comparative review of the literatures on online and blended management education, one could say that blended environments may yield more positive outcomes, in part due to both the opportunity for and the requirement of increased learner control over the learning process and interaction and collaboration with fellow learners. This combination of self-directed and group-directed activity is enhanced by intentional and thoughtful instructor consideration of the types of activities that are positioned in either aspect of the blend (Drennan et al., 2005; Ross & Rosenbaun, 2011; Sautter, 2007). However, because we have so few studies that examine both settings simultaneously, it also is possible that we may be seeing in this review the result of several potential confounds, such as differing pedagogies or learning time allocations (Means et al., 2010). These confounds create prime opportunities for future research that will advance not only business and management education, but also the entire field of blended learning research. Because we are interested in helping management education researchers take a leadership role in advancing this field, we note some of these opportunities in the following paragraphs.

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.

Conclusion

Although technology-mediated management education has received substantial research attention over the last 15 years, our understanding of effectively blending classroom and online activities is only beginning to take shape. Opportunities to enhance learner control and group collaboration through blended environments have the potential to substantially enhance instructional approaches and student learning in management education. By using our extensive research knowledge of both online and classroom-based instruction, management educators have the opportunity to provide a balanced approach to blended environments, from which both students and educators will benefit.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Akyol

Garrison

D. R.

(2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 233-250.

Allan

Lawless

(2003). Stress caused by on-line collaboration in e-learning: A developing model. Education + Training, 45, 564-572.

Allen

I. E.

Seaman

(2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

Allen

I. E.

Seaman

Garrett

(2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended learning in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

Alrushiedat

Olfman

(2013). Aiding participation and engagement in a blended learning environment. Journal of Information Systems Education, 24, 133-145.

Alshare

K. A.

Freeze

R. D.

Lane

P. L.

Wen

H. J.

(2011). The impacts of system and human factors on online learning systems use and learner satisfaction. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9, 447-461.

Andre

(2011). Using leadered groups in organizational behavior and management survey courses. Journal of Management Education, 35, 596-619.

Anstine

Skidmore

(2005). A small sample study of traditional and online courses with sample selection adjustment. Journal of Economic Education, 36, 107-127.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory comparison of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous internet-based MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24, 207-227.

10.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42-54.

11.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2002). Managing the on-line classroom: A study of technological and behavioral characteristics of web-based MBA courses. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, 203-223.

12.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2004). Learning to learn online: A study of perceptual changes between multiple online course experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 169-182.

13.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2005). Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 135-149.

14.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2010a). Do undergraduates and MBAs differ online? Initial conclusions from the literature. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 129-142.

15.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2010b). Sage, guide, both, or even more? An examination of instructor activity in online MBA courses. Computers & Education, 55, 1234-1244.

16.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2013). Does academic discipline moderate CoI-course outcome relationships in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 16-28.

17.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2014). Scholar, software, or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/jcal.12048

18.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Benbunan-Fich

(2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 435-447.

19.

Arbaugh

J. B.

DeArmond

Rau

B. L.

(2013). New uses for existing tools? A call to study online management instruction and instructors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12, 635-655.

20.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Desai

A. B.

Rau

B. L.

Sridhar

B. S.

(2010). A review of research on online and blended learning in the management discipline: 1994-2009. Organization Management Journal, 7(1), 39-55.

21.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Duray

(2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with web-based courses: An exploratory study of two MBA programs. Management Learning, 33, 231-247.

22.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Godfrey

M. R.

Johnson

Leisen Pollack

Niendorf

Wresch

(2009). Research in online and blended learning in the business disciplines: Key findings and possible future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 12, 71-87.

23.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Hwang

(2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 9-21.

24.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Hwang

(2013). Uses of multivariate analytical techniques in online and blended business education: An assessment of current practice and recommendations for future research. Journal of Management Education, 37, 229-260.

25.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Hwang

Leisen Pollack

(2011). A review of research methods in online and blended business education: 2000-2009. In Eom

S. B.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(Eds.), Student satisfaction and learning outcomes in e-learning: An introduction to empirical research (pp. 37-56). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

26.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Rau

B. L.

(2007). A study of disciplinary, structural, and behavioral effects on course outcomes in online MBA courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 65-95.

27.

Asarta

C. J.

Schmidt

J. R.

(2013). Access patterns of online materials in a blended course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 11(1), 107-123.

28.

Bacon

D. R.

Stewart

K. A.

Silver

W. S.

(1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23, 467-488.

29.

Baker-Eveleth

L. J.

Eveleth

D. M.

Sarker

(2005). An emerging on-line “third place” for information systems (IS) students: Some preliminary observations. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16, 465-475.

30.

Balotsky

E. R.

Christensen

E. W.

(2004). Educating a modern business workforce: An integrated educational information technology process. Group & Organization Management, 29, 148-170.

31.

Baugher

Varanelli

Weisbord

(2003). Student hits in an internet-supported course: How can instructors use them and what do they mean? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 1, 159-179.

32.

Benbunan-Fich

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2006). Separating the effects of knowledge construction and group collaboration in web-based courses. Information & Management, 43, 778-793.

33.

Benbunan-Fich

Hiltz

S. R.

(2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46, 298-312.

34.

Bernard

R. M.

Abrami

P. C.

Borokhovski

Wade

C. A.

Tamim

R. M.

Surkes

M. A.

Bethel

E. C.

(2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243-1289.

35.

Bernard

R. M.

Abrami

P. C.

Lou

Borokhovski

Wade

Wozney

Wallet

P. A.

Fiset

Huang

(2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379-439.

36.

Bishop

J. L.

Verleger

M. A.

(2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. Paper presented at the 120th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA.

37.

Bonk

C. J.

Graham

C. R.

(Eds.). (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

38.

Borthick

A. F.

Jones

D. R.

(2000). The motivation for collaborative discovery learning online and its application in an information systems assurance course. Issues in Accounting Education, 15, 181-210.

39.

Brink

A. G.

(2013). The impact of pre-and post-lecture quizzes on performance in Intermediate Accounting II. Issues in Accounting Education, 28, 461-485.

40.

Brower

H. H.

(2003). On emulating classroom discussion in a distance-delivered OBHR course: Creating an on-line community. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(1), 22-36.

41.

Brown

B. W.

Liedholm

C. E.

(2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of microeconomics? American Economic Review, 92, 444-448.

42.

Bruff

D. O.

Fisher

D. H.

McEwen

K. E.

Smith

B. E.

(2013). Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 9, 187-199.

43.

Bryant

Campbell

Kerr

(2003). Impact of web based flexible learning on academic performance in information systems. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(1), 41-50.

44.

Bull Schaefer

R. A.

Erskine

(2012). Virtual team meetings: Reflections on a class exercise exploring technology choice. Journal of Management Education, 36, 777-801.

45.

Burke

L. A.

Moore

J. E.

(2003). A perennial dilemma in OB education: Engaging the traditional student. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 37-52.

46.

Chen

C. C.

Jones

K. T.

(2007). Blended learning vs. traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA Accounting course. Journal of Educators Online, 4(1), 1-15.

47.

Chou

A. Y.

Chou

D. C.

(2011). Course management systems and blended learning: An innovative learning approach. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9, 463-484.

48.

Clark

D. N.

Gibb

J. L.

(2006). Virtual team learning: An introductory study team exercise. Journal of Management Education, 30, 765-787.

49.

Clark

R. E.

(1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21-29.

50.

Clouse

S. F.

Evans

G. E.

(2003). Graduate business students’ performance with synchronous and asynchronous interaction e-learning methods. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 1, 181-202.

51.

Coates

Humphreys

B. R.

Kane

Vachris

M. A.

(2004). “No significant distance” between face-to-face and online instruction: Evidence from principles of economics. Economics of Education Review, 23, 533-546.

52.

Colucci

Koppel

(2010). Impact of placement and quality of face-to-face meetings in a hybrid distance learning course. American Journal of Business Education, 3(2), 119-130.

53.

Comer

D. R.

Lenaghan

J. A.

(2013). Enhancing discussions in the asynchronous online classroom: The lack of face-to-face interaction does not lessen the lesson. Journal of Management Education, 37, 261-294.

54.

Cox

Carr

Hall

(2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 20, 183-193.

55.

Cunliffe

A. L.

(2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28, 407-426.

56.

Daspit

D’Souza

D. E.

(2012). Using the community of inquiry framework to introduce wiki environments in blended learning pedagogies: Evidence from a business capstone course. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 666-683.

57.

Davis

Wong

(2007). Conceptualizing and measuring the optimal experience of the elearning environment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5, 97-126.

58.

Daymont

Blau

(2011). Deciding between traditional and online formats: Exploring the role of learning advantages, flexibility, and compensatory adaptation. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 12, 156-175.

59.

De Lange

Suwardy

Mavondo

(2003). Integrating a virtual learning environment into an introductory accounting course: Determinants of student motivation. Accounting Education, 12(1), 1-14.

60.

Dineen

B. R.

(2005). TeamXchange: A team project experience involving virtual teams and fluid team membership. Journal of Management Education, 29, 593-616.

61.

Drago

Peltier

Sorensen

(2002). Course content or the instructor: Which is more important in on-line teaching? Management Research News, 25(6/7), 69-83.

62.

Drennan

Kennedy

Pisarski

(2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 331-338.

63.

Drysdale

J. S.

Graham

C. R.

Spring

K. J.

Halverson

L. R.

(2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 90-100.

64.

Eom

S. B.

Wen

H. J.

Ashill

(2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4, 215-235.

65.

Erez

Lisak

Harush

Glikson

Nouri

Shokef

(2013). Going global: Developing management students’ cultural intelligence and global identity in culturally diverse virtual teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12, 330-355.

66.

Eveleth

D. M.

Baker-Eveleth

L. J.

(2003). Developing dialogue skill—A qualitative investigation of an on-line collaboration in a team management course. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 228-233.

67.

Ford

M. W.

Kent

D. W.

Devoto

(2007). Learning from the pros: Influence of web-based expert commentary on vicarious learning about financial markets. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5, 43-63.

68.

Friday

Friday-Stroud

S. S.

Green

A. L.

Hill

A. Y.

(2006). A multi-semester comparison of student performance between multiple traditional and online sections of two management courses. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 8(1), 66-81.

69.

Garrison

D. R.

Anderson

Archer

(2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87-105.

70.

Garrison

D. R.

Kanuka

(2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.

71.

Garrison

D. R.

Vaughn

N. D.

(2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

72.

Garvey

Buckley

(2010). Teaching the concept of risk: Blended learning using a custom-built prediction market. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 21, 346-357.

73.

Gaver

Berge

Z. L.

(2010). The role subject matter plays in the decision to offer online training. Distance Learning (USDLA), 7(1), 49-56.

74.

Geddes

(2009). How am I doing? Exploring on-line gradebook monitoring as a self-regulated learning practice that impacts academic achievement. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 494-510.

75.

Graham

C. R.

(2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In Bonk

C. J.

Graham

C. R.

(Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

76.

Grandzol

C. J.

Grandzol

J. R.

(2010). Interaction in online courses: More is not always better. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(2). Retrieved from http://distance.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer132/Grandzol_Grandzol132.html

77.

Grandzol

J. R.

(2004). Teaching MBA statistics online: A pedagogically sound process approach. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 237-244.

78.

Gratton-Lavoie

Stanley

(2009). Teaching and learning of principles of microeconomics online: An empirical assessment. Journal of Economic Education, 40(2), 3-25.

79.

Grzeda

Miller

G. E.

(2009). The effectiveness of an online MBA program in meeting mid-career student expectations. Journal of Educators Online, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume6Number2/GrzedaandMillerPaper.pdf

80.

Gunawardena

C. N.

Zittle

F. J.

(1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 8-26.

81.

Halverson

L. R.

Graham

C. R.

Spring

K. J.

Drysdale

J. S.

(2012). An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Education, 33, 381-413.

82.

Hamilton

(2010). Smart utilization of tertiary instructional modes. Computers & Education, 54, 1036-1053.

83.

Hansen

D. E.

(2008). Knowledge transfer in online learning environments. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(2), 93-105.

84.

Hartman

Dziuban

Moskal

(2000). Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: A dependent or independent variable. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4, 155-179.

85.

Haytko

D. L.

(2001). Traditional versus hybrid course delivery systems: A case study of undergraduate marketing planning courses. Marketing Education Review, 11(3), 27-39.

86.

Heckman

Annabi

(2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/heckman.html

87.

Hodgson

Reynolds

(2005). Consensus, difference and “multiple communities” in networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 11-24.

88.

Hornik

Tupchiy

(2006). Culture’s impact on technology-mediated learning: The role of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Global Information Management, 14(4), 31-56.

89.

(2009). An international virtual team based project at the undergraduate level: Design and assessment. Marketing Education Review, 19(1), 17-22.

90.

Hwang

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2006). Virtual and traditional feedback-seeking behaviors: Underlying competitive attitudes and consequent grade performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4, 1-28.

91.

Hwang

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2009). Seeking feedback in blended learning: Competitive versus cooperative student attitudes and their links to learning outcome. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 280-293.

92.

Hwang

Francesco

A. M.

(2010). The influence of individualism-collectivism and power distance on use of feedback channels and consequences for learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 243-257.

93.

Ivancevich

J. M.

Gilbert

J. A.

Konopaske

(2009). Studying and facilitating dialogue in select online management courses. Journal of Management Education, 33, 196-218.

94.

Johnson

R. D.

Hornik

Salas

(2008). An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 356-369.

95.

Johnson

T. E.

Top

Yukselturk

(2011). Team shared mental model as a contributing factor to team performance and students’ course satisfaction in blended courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2330-2338.

96.

Jones

K. T.

Chen

C. C.

(2008). Blended learning in a graduate accounting course: Student satisfaction and course design issues. Accounting Educator’s Journal, 18, 15-28.

97.

Kayes

D. C.

(2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 137-149.

98.

(2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers & Education, 55, 808-820.

99.

Keith

N. K.

Simmers

C. S.

(2013). Adapting the marketing educational environment for multi-cultural millennials: The Chinese experience. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(3), 83-92.

100.

Kellogg

D. L.

Smith

M. A.

(2009). Student-to-student interaction revisited: A case study of working adult business students in online courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7, 433-456.

101.

Kenworthy

A. L.

Fornaciari

C. J.

(2010). No more reinventing the service-learning wheel: Presenting a diverse compilation of best practice “how to” articles. Journal of Management Education, 34, 3-8.

102.

Kirschner

P. A.

Sweller

Clark

R. E.

(2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

103.

Klein

H. J.

Noe

R. A.

Wang

(2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59, 665-702.

104.

Kock

Verville

Garza

(2007). Media naturalness and online learning: Findings supporting both the significant- and no-significant-difference perspectives. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5, 333-355.

105.

Kovach

J. V.

Miley

Ramos

M. A.

(2012). Using online studio groups to improve writing competency: A pilot study in a quality improvement methods course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10, 363-387.

106.

Kozma

R. B.

(1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7-19.

107.

Ladyshewsky

R. K.

Taplin

(2013). Factors influencing mode of study preferences in post-graduate business students. International Journal of Management Education, 11, 34-43.

108.

Landry

B. J. L.

Griffeth

Hartman

(2006). Measuring student perceptions of blackboard using the technology acceptance model. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4, 87-99.

109.

Leigh

J. S. A.

Beatty

J. E.

Szwed

P. S.

(2008). Team on teams: A collaborative inquiry. Organization Management Journal, 5, 194-205.

110.

Liu

Magjuka

R. J.

Bonk

C. J.

Lee

(2007). Does sense of community matter? An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning communities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9-24.

111.

Liu

Magjuka

R. J.

Lee

(2008). The effects of cognitive thinking styles, trust, conflict management on online students’ learning and virtual team performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 829-846.

112.

Mariola

Manley

(2002). Teaching finance concepts in a distance learning environment: A personal note. Journal of Education for Business, 77, 177-180.

113.

Marks

R. B.

Sibley

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29, 531-563.

114.

Martins

L. L.

Kellermanns

F. W.

(2004). A model of business school students’ acceptance of a web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 7-26.

115.

May

G. L.

Short

(2003). Gardening in cyberspace: A metaphor to enhance online teaching and learning. Journal of Management Education, 27, 673-693.

116.

McDonald

(2011). It’s time for management version 2.0: Six forces redefining the future of modern management. Futures, 43, 797-808.

117.

Means

Toyama

Murphy

Bakia

Jones

(2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

118.

Millson

M. R.

Wilemon

(2008). Educational quality correlates of online graduate management education. Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 1-18.

119.

Moskal

Dziuban

Hartman

(2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15-23.

120.

Ocak

M. A.

(2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty members. Computers & Education, 56, 689-699.

121.

Olitsky

N. H.

Cosgrove

S. B.

(in press). The effect of blended courses on student learning: Evidence from introductory economics courses. International Review of Economics Education.

122.

Oliver

Trigwell

(2005). Can “blended learning” be redeemed? E-Learning, 2, 17-26.

123.

Olson-Buchanan

J. B.

Rechner

P. L.

Sanchez

R. J.

Schmidtke

J. M.

(2007). Using virtual teams in a management principles course. Education + Training, 49, 408-423.

124.

Osguthorpe

R. T.

Graham

C. R.

(2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 227-234.

125.

Padilla-Melendez

del Aguila Obra

A. R.

Garrido-Moreno

(2013). Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers & Education, 63, 306-317.

126.

Padilla-Melendez

Garrido-Moreno

del Aguila Obra

A. R.

(2008). Factors affecting e-collaboration technology use among management students. Computers & Education, 51, 609-623.

127.

Parsad

Lewis

Tice

(2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006-2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf

128.

Peltier

J. W.

Drago

Schibrowsky

J. A.

(2003). Virtual communities and the assessment of online Marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 260-276.

129.

Peltier

J. W.

Schibrowsky

J. A.

Drago

(2007). The interdependence of the factors influencing the perceived quality of the online learning experience: A causal model. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 140-153.

130.

Piccoli

Ahmad

Ives

(2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25, 401-426.

131.

Priluck

(2004). Web-assisted courses for business education: An examination of two sections of principles of marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 161-173.

132.

Proserpio

Gioia

D. A.

(2007). Teaching the virtual generation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 69-80.

133.

Reay

(2001). Blended learning: A fusion for the future. Knowledge Management Review, 4(3), 6.

134.

Reay

Berta

Kohn

M. K.

(2009). What’s the evidence on evidence-based management? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 5-18.

135.

Reynolds

(1998). Reflection and critical reflection in management learning. Management Learning, 29, 183-200.

136.

Richardson

J. C.

Swan

(2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1). Retrieved from http://actxelearning.pbworks.com/f/10.1.1.119.9339.pdf

137.

Rienties

Giesbers

Tempelaar

D. T.

Lygo-Baker

(2013). Redesigning teaching presence in order to enhance cognitive presence, a longitudinal analysis. In Akyol

Garrison

(Eds.), Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice (pp. 109-132). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

138.

Rollag

(2010). Teaching business cases online through discussion boards: Strategies and best practices. Journal of Management Education, 34, 499-526.

139.

Ross

D. N.

Rosenbloom

(2011). Reflections on building and teaching an undergraduate strategic management course in a blended format. Journal of Management Education, 35, 351-376.

140.

Rovai

A. P.

Jordan

H. M.

(2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1-13.

141.

Rubin

R. S.

Dierdorff

(2013). Building a better MBA: From a decade of critique toward a decennium of creation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12, 125-141.

142.

Rungtusanatham

Ellram

L. M.

Siferd

S. P.

Salik

(2004). Toward a typology of business education in the internet age. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2(2), 101-120.

143.

Rynes

S. L.

Brown

K. G.

(2011). Where are we in the “long march to legitimacy?” Assessing scholarship in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 561-582.

144.

Saade

Bahli

(2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in online learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42, 317-327.

145.

Saade

R. G.

(2007). Dimensions of perceived usefulness: Toward enhanced assessment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5, 289-310.

146.

Sauers

Walker

R. C.

(2004). A comparison of traditional and technology-assisted instructional methods in the business communication classroom. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 430-442.

147.

Sautter

(2007). Designing discussion activities to achieve desired learning outcomes: Choices using mode of delivery and structure. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 122-131.

148.

Selim Ahmed

H. M.

(2010). Hybrid e-learning acceptance model: Learner perceptions. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8, 313-346.

149.

Shea

Bidjerano

(2010). Learning presence: Toward a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55, 1721-1731.

150.

Shea

Bidjerano

(2012). Learning presence as a moderator in the community of inquiry model. Computers & Education, 59, 316-326.

151.

Shea

Hayes

Vickers

Gozza-Cohen

Uzuner

Mehta

. . . Rangan

(2010). A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 10-21.

152.

Simmering

M. J.

Posey

Piccoli

(2009). Computer self-efficacy and motivation to learn in a self-directed online course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7, 99-121.

153.

Simon

Haghirian

Schlegelmilch

B. B.

(2003). Enriching global marketing education with virtual classrooms: An effectiveness study. Marketing Education Review, 13(3), 27-39.

154.

Singh

(2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51-54.

155.

Sitzmann

Kraiger

Stewart

Wisher

(2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623-664.

156.

Stoel

Lee

K. H.

(2003). Modeling the effect of experience on student acceptance of web-based course software. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 13, 364-374.

157.

Stubbs

Martin

Endlar

(2006). The structuration of blended learning: Putting holistic design principles into practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 163-175.

158.

Sullivan

S. E.

Baruch

Schepmyer

(2010). The why, what, and how of reviewer education: A human capital approach. Journal of Management Education, 34, 393-429.

159.

Terry

(2007). Assessing instruction modes for master of business administration (MBA) courses. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 220-225.

160.

Vamosi

A. R.

Pierce

B. G.

Slotkin

M. H.

(2004). Distance learning in an accounting principles course—Student satisfaction and perceptions of efficacy. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 360-366.

161.

Van der Merwe

(2011). Can online learning boost academic performance? A microeconomics study. International Business and Economics Research Journal, 10(8), 45-55.

162.

Wagner

R. K. F.

(2009). Action learning with Second Life—A pilot study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 249-258.

163.

Webb

H. W.

Gill

Poe

(2005). Teaching with the case method online: Pure versus hybrid approaches. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3, 223-250.

164.

Weber

J. M.

Lennon

(2007). Multi-course comparison of traditional versus web-based course delivery systems. Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), 1-19.

165.

Wells

De Lange

Fieger

(2008). Integrating a virtual learning environment into a second year accounting course: Determinants of overall student perception. Accounting & Finance, 48, 503-518.

166.

Whetten

D. A.

(2008). Introducing AMLE’s educational research databases. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 139-143.

167.

Wiechowski

Washburn

T. L.

(2014). Online finance and economics courses: A comparative study of course satisfaction and outcomes across learning models. American Journal of Business Education, 7(1), 37-47.

168.

Williams

E. A.

Duray

Reddy

(2006). Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and student learning: A study of the use of teams in online distance education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 592-616.

169.

Wilson

A. H.

(2003). Evidence of the effectiveness of course management software and asynchronous communication in a first finance course. Journal of Financial Education, 29(3), 40-54.

170.

Wilson

D. D.

(2011). Applying mass customization concepts to core courses: Increasing student-centered customization and enabling cross-functional integration. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9, 81-100.

171.

Bieber

Hiltz

S. R.

(2008). Engaging students with constructivist examinations in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19, 321-330.

172.

Yoo

Kanawattanachai

Citurs

(2002). Forging into the wired wilderness: A case study of a technology-mediated distributed discussion-based class. Journal of Management Education, 26, 139-163.

173.

Zabriskie

F. H.

McNabb

D. E.

(2007). E-hancing the master of business administration (MBA) managerial accounting course. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 226-233.