Hybrid course delivery: a good fit for education leadership  (Page 3/5)

Not all agree that fully online course delivery is the best preparation method for students in higher education. Evan and Haase (2001) found that many online learners are moderately lacking in computer proficiency and, since e-learning is centered around computer technologies, it is a barrier to those learners without good computer skills. In addition Evan and Haase (2001), O’Regan (2003), and Rovai and Jordan (2004) found that online learners face limited physical interactions among themselves.

Opponents also point to high student attrition rates as the “Achilles’ heel” of fully online course delivery. Student drop-out rates in fully online courses have been reported as high as 35% to 50% (Lynch 2001). Nitsch (2003) summarized the reasoning behind the high attrition rates for fully online learners as follows:

The online learner is isolated from much of the social activities of learning (White&Weight, 2000). The online student lacks immediate support of peers and instructors, an important element of student success as described in Tinto’s model of attrition (Tinto, 1993). In this model, several factors that impact attrition are explained with emphasis placed on the need for social integration as part of the learning process. Lonely people tend to be less involved in the learning process (Pugliese, 1994). With this lack of physical proximity, there is a decrease in the motivation to succeed in the online courses. Where many of the students seek out online learning because of its flexibility, this flexibility puts a student in the position of having to depend only on oneself to maintain the desire to complete a course. Without an adequate support system, a student could easily lose sight of the reasons for completing the program and decide to drop out.

Ward and Druade (2010) posited, “It is not very hard to find the arguments against totally online classes, however. Faculty and students alike voice opinions that they miss the face to face exchange of ideas. Online, facial expressions go unseen and messages in body language are lost. Dialogue that is spontaneous and meaningful often occurs in the presence of classmates. Faculty can actually see students’ responses to help them know whether or not an important concept is understood” (p. 1).

Thus the paradox of fully online delivery of education leadership preparation courses designed to produce leaders who excel in the physical presence of others. Thus, the niche for blended or hybrid course delivery in education leadership preparation programs is exposed.

Hybrid course delivery defined

The common definition of hybrid course delivery includes:

• Courses in which significant portions of the learning activities have been moved online, a combination of traditional classroom and Internet instruction.
• Time traditionally spent in the classroom is reduced but not eliminated.
• The goal of hybrid courses is to join the best features of in-class teaching with the best features of online learning to promote active independent learning and reduce class seat time.
• Using computer-based technologies, instructors use the hybrid model to redesign some lecture or lab content into new online learning activities, such as case studies, tutorials, self-testing exercises, simulations, and online group collaborations.