Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Classifying the management of the blend: a typology of the management of blended learning course development

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This literature review proposes a mechanism for assessing the extent to which the processes involved in developing blended learning courses are managed. A review of the literature on the development of blended learning courses reveals a wide disparity in how these processes are managed. Emerging from the review is a set of criteria that constitute a typology that can be used to compare approaches to managing the development of blended learning courses. The typology is then applied to 20 case studies/models of blended learning development taken from the literature review. Applying the typology, a clear distinction between how blended learning courses are managed emerges. This distinction is then examined using management theories of managerialism, collegiality and neo-collegiality to contextualise the distinction and the commonality in these managed processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 440–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ari, M., & Taplamacioglu, M. C. (2012). Web-based blended e-learning for adults: A case study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1028–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, E. (2014). Neo-collegiality: Restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change : Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocconi, S., & Trentin, G. (2015). Modelling blended solutions for higher education: Teaching, learning, and assessment in the network and mobile technology era. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(7–8), 516–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohle Carbonell, K., Dailey-Hebert, A., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Unleashing the creative potential of faculty to create blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botterill, M. A. (2013). Behind the screen : Intergroup collaboration in developing university-based online learning resources (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:160712/Botterill.pdf.Accessed 11 Nov 2018.

  • Boyle, T. (2005). A dynamic, systematic method for developing blended learning. Education, Communication & Information, 5(3), 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnes, B., Wend, P., & By, T. (2013). The changing face of English universities: Reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, T., & Santiago, R. (2010). New public management and “middle management”: How do deans influence institutional policies? In V. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, & T. Carvalho (Eds.), The changing dynamics of higher education middle management (pp. 165–196). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Casanovas, I. (2010). Exploring the current theoretical background about adoption until institutionalization of online education in universities: Needs for further research. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 8(2), 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, K. A., & Hiremath, U. (2012). Reference and information services: An introduction (3rd ed.). Chicago: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 106–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conole, G. (2007). An international comparison of the relationship between policy and practice in E-learning. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), Handbook of e-learning research (pp. 286–311). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. New York, NY: Springer New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conole, G., & Oliver, M. (2007). Introduction. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice (pp. 3–20). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, H. C., & Fill, K. (2007). Embedding blended learning in a university’s teaching culture: Experiences and reflections. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 817–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2005). Management as ideology: The case of “new managerialism” in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elton, L. (1995). Task differentiation in universities: Towards a new collegiality. Tertiary Education and Management, 2(2), 138–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education; framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2012). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgouli, K., Skalkidis, I., & Guerreiro, P. (2008). A framework for adopting LMS to introduce e-learning in a traditional course. Educational Technology and Society, 11(2), 227–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goolnik, G. (2012). Change management strategies when undertaking e-learning initiatives in higher education. Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership, 10(2), 16–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2012). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedley, S. (2010). Managerialism in Irish universities. Irish Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), 117–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, N., & O’Shea, J. (2004). Challenging hierarchies: The impact of e-learning. Higher Education, 48(3), 379–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolsaker, A. (2008). Academic professionalism in the managerialist era: A study of English universities. Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), 513–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korr, J., Derwin, E. B., Greene, K., & Sokoloff, W. (2012). Transitioning an adult-serving university to a blended learning model. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60(1), 2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lightner, C., & Lightner-Laws, C. (2013). A blended model: Simultaneously teaching a quantitative course traditionally, online, and remotely. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: Are universities capable of organisational change? Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., & Whitworth, A. (2008). Editorial introduction: BJET special issue on best practice or situated action: The organisation of technology enhanced learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 411–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meek, V., Goedegebuure, L., Santiago, R., & Carvalho, T. (2010). Introduction. In V. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, & T. Carvalho (Eds.), The changing dynamics of higher education middle management (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, M. (2008). Institutional perspectives: The challenges of e-learning diffusion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 598–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec, M., & Otte, G. (2010). An administrator’s guide to the whys and hows of blended learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 14(1), 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers and Education, 75, 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, F. O., & Tiplic, D. (2013). In pursuit of excellence? Discursive patterns in European higher education research. Higher Education, (123), 1–17.

  • Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 13(3), 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G., Jones, S., & Armellini, A. (2008). Building institutional capability in e-learning design. ALT-J, 6(2), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., & Francis, R. (2006). Implementing a university e-learning strategy: Levers for change within academic schools. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 14(2), 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stepanyan, K., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Sustainable e-learning: Toward a coherent body of knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16, 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teghe, D., & Knight, B. A. (2004). Neo-liberal higher education policy and its effects on the development of online courses. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 21(4), 151–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2014). Collegiality and managerialism: A false dichotomy? Evidence from the higher education literature. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(4), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.956788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrisi-Steele, G., & Drew, S. (2013). The literature landscape of blended learning in higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(4), 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trowler, P. (2010). UK higher education: Captured by new Managerialist ideology? In V. L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, & T. Carvalho (Eds.), The changing dynamics of higher education middle management (pp. 83–102). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uys, P. M., Nleya, P., & Molelu, G. B. (2004). Technological innovation and management strategies for higher education in Africa: Harmonizing reality and idealism. Educational Media International, 41(1), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, N. D. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement and course redesign. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 60–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, R. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(2), 121–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Dr. Nataša Lacković and Dr. Tom Farrelly for commenting on earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Tony Murphy

Authors
  1. Tony Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tony Murphy.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murphy, T. Classifying the management of the blend: a typology of the management of blended learning course development. Tert Educ Manag 25, 211–224 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09032-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09032-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation