Vol. 29 No. 1 (2014)
Research Articles

A Study of Hybrid Instructional Delivery for Graduate Students in an Educational Leadership Course

Alejandro Garcia
The University of Texas-Brownsville
Jesus Abrego
The University of Texas-Brownsville
Meagan M. Calvillo
The University of Texas-Brownsville

Published 2014-06-02


  • Principal Preparation Program,
  • public school leadership preparation,
  • blended learning,
  • delivery systems,
  • learning from afar,
  • higher education online learning,
  • web-based students,
  • nontraditional education,
  • Technology-supported Learning,
  • Learning Management
  • ...More

How to Cite

Garcia, A., Abrego, J., & Calvillo, M. M. (2014). A Study of Hybrid Instructional Delivery for Graduate Students in an Educational Leadership Course. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 29(1). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/864


This paper describes a qualitative study in which ways to improve instructional delivery for graduate students in an Educational Leadership course in Master of Education program in a predominantly Hispanic university located in South Texas were examined. Questions explored perceptions, attitudes, and reasons for choosing a hybrid instructional delivery model. Five themes emerged from the data: flexibility, assumption of responsibility in learning, emphasis on active learning, building peer relationships, and deepened learning.


  1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.
  2. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and Blended Communities of Inquiry: Exploring the Developmental and Perceptional Differences. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 10(6), 65-83.
  3. AYTAÇ, T. (2009). The influence of blended learning model on development leadership skills of school administrators. Paper presented at the Special issue on ICIT 2009 conference-applied computing, Ankara, Turkey.
  4. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  5. Doering, A. (2006). Adventure learning: Transformative hybrid online education. Distance Education, 27, 197–215.
  6. Finn, A., & Bucceri, M. (2004).A case study approach to blended learning, retrieved January 15, 2013 from http://www.centra.com/download/whitepapers/CaseStudy_BlendedLearning.pdf.
  7. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online Community of Inquiry review: Social, cognitive and teaching presence Issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.
  8. Garnham, C. & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(10).
  9. Glass, J. & Sue, V. (2008). Preferences, satisfaction, and perceived learning in an online mathematics class. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Student, 4(3).
  10. Ku, H.Y., Akarasrisworn, C., Rice. Lisa A., Glassmeyer, D. & Mendoza, B. (2011).Teaching an online graduate mathematics education course in for in-service mathematics teachers. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2),135–147.
  11. Langley, A. (2007). “Experiential learning, e-learning and social learning: the EES approach to developing blended Learning” The Fourth Education in a Changing Environment Conference Book, Edited by Eamon O’Doherty, İnforming Science Press, pp.171-172.
  12. Li, C. S., & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, challenges, concerns, and recommendations. College Student Journal, 42 (2), 449-458.
  13. Liu, X., Magjuka, R.J., Bonk, C.J., & Lee, S.-H. (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.
  14. Marder, T. J & de Bettencourt, L.U. (2012). Using a hybrid model to prepare special educators to teach students identified with ASD Rural. Special education Quarterly, 31(3), 12-19.
  15. Morris, L. V., & Finnegan, C. L. (2008). Best practices in predicting and encouraging student persistence and achievement online. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 10(1), 55-64.
  16. Mupinga, D. M., Nora, R. T. & Yaw, D. C. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students. College Teaching, 54(1), 185–189.
  17. Oh, E., & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended instruction? Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 327– 342.
  18. Offenholley, K. (2006). Threaded discussion: “Life-blood” of online math courses. Online Classroom, 2, 8.
  19. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park; London: SAGE
  20. Penny, L., & Murphy, E. (2009). Rubrics for designing and evaluating online asynchronous discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 804-820.
  21. Rovai, A.P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332.
  22. Rovai, A. P., & Grooms, L. D. (2004). The relationship of personality-based learning style preferences and learning among online graduate students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 30-47.
  23. Yang, C. & Chang, Y. S. (2012). Assessing the effects of interactive blogging on student attitudes towards peer interaction, learning motivation, and academic achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 126–135.
  24. Zacharis, N.Z., (2011). The effect of learning style on preference for web-based courses and learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5).