2013DE BLImpactArticle20120822

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/242071789
An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended

learning
Article in Distance Education · November 2013

DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2012.723166
CITATIONS READS
175 2,304
4 authors, including:
Lisa Halverson Charles R. Graham

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus
10 PUBLICATIONS 1,869 CITATIONS 135 PUBLICATIONS 16,499 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Dissertation Research: Blended Teaching Competencies View project
Online Learning Research View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Charles R. Graham on 04 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SCHOLARSHIP IN BLENDED LEARNING
Running Head: SCHOLARSHIP IN BLENDED LEARNING
This is a prepublication draft of the article to appear in:

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(3). 381-413.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166
An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning
Lisa R. Halverson
Charles R. Graham
Kristian J. Spring
Jeffery S. Drysdale
Brigham Young University
Publication Info: 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(3), 381–413.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166

SCHOLARSHIP IN BLENDED LEARNING 2

Abstract
Blended learning, a diverse and expanding area of design and inquiry, combines face-to-face and
online modalities. As blended learning research matures, more and more diverse voices enter the
conversation. This study begins the search for the center of this emerging area of study by
finding the most-cited scholarship on blended learning. Using Harzing’s Publish or Perish
software (Harzing, 2011), which retrieves and calculates academic citations from Google
Scholar, we determined the most frequently cited books, edited book chapters, and articles on the
subject of blended learning, as well as the journals in which these highly cited articles appeared.
Through these findings we offer a few conclusions about where the conversations about blended
learning are happening, which scholars are at the forefront of these conversations, and other
emerging trends related to scholarship in blended learning.
Keywords: blended learning; hybrid learning; publication impact & trends; online
learning; scholarship
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Introduction
More than a decade ago, blended learning was judged “all pervasive in the training
industry” (Reay, 2001). The American Society for Training and Development argued that
blended learning was one of the top emerging trends in the knowledge delivery industry (Finn,
2002). More recently, blended learning was deemed “likely to emerge as the predominant model
of the future—and to become far more common than either [online or face-to-face instruction]
alone” (Watson, 2008, p. 3).
During the decade in which these statements were made, blended learning—an area of
design and inquiry that combines face-to-face and online modalities (Graham, 2006)— has
received recognition for its transformative potential in education (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004;
Graham & Robison, 2007; Dziuban, Moskal, & Hartman, 2005), seen attempts to define the field
(Chew, Turner, & Jones, 2010; Graham, 2006), and experienced increased implementation
(Bonk, Kim, & Zeng, 2006; Picciano & Seaman, 2009). As the scope of blended learning
increases and the related research matures, more and more diverse voices have entered the
conversation from fields such as teacher education, the military, medical education and nursing,
business, and engineering. As a result of this expansion and diversification, research on blended
learning lacks a center point. With little cohesion in blended learning research, the question
arises: Just where are the conversations about blended learning being held, and what are they
really about?
This study begins the search for the center of this emerging area of study by finding and
reviewing the most impactful scholarship and research on blended learning. There are many
ways to define impact (Howard, 2012). In addition to the popular Impact Factor (IF) rating of
the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), which calculates the number of times a journal is
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


cited by another journal, the burgeoning field of "alternative metrics" or altmetrics gathers new
forms of activities that reflect and transmit scholarly impact (Priem, Taraborelli, Groth, &
Neylon, 2011; “Research in context: Article-level metrics,” 2009). We opted to use another
method for tracking impact: Google Scholar retrieves and analyzes academic citations, allowing
us to determine the most-cited articles, edited book chapters, books, and non-academic
publications (reports, white papers, and trade journals) that focus on blended learning. Though
not as thorough as altmetrics hopes to be, Google Scholar overcomes many of the issues that
plague the IF (see “Methodology” for further discussion). As far as we have been able to
determine, there are no other articles that have attempted this type of analysis for blended
learning research.
By determining the most impactful authors and publications, we learn who is publishing
on blended learning, across all fields and journals, and whose ideas are receiving the most
attention. Consequently our understanding of the conversations about blended learning is
deepened. We can then examine the journals and books from which the impactful scholarship is
coming. To be part of the dialogue about blended learning, scholars must understand where the
discourse is occurring. Finally, blended learning occurs in a diversity of contexts, from K-12
public education to corporate training environments; in what contexts is the most impactful
blended learning research taking place?
The central question of this article is: Where are the conversations about blended learning
occurring? In other words, what is the most impactful scholarship in the field of blended
learning as measured by citations? This thesis question is investigated using these research
questions:
1. What are the 50 most frequently cited articles?

doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


2. What are the 25 most frequently cited book chapters?
3. What are the 10 most frequently cited books?
4. Which authors are most frequently cited?
5. In which journals do the most frequently cited articles appear?
6. What contexts for blended learning are being studied in the top-cited publications?
For reasons of space, within the text of this article we only display the top ten results from each
category. However, full lists of top-cited publications in each category are provided in the
appendices. Additionally, the authors are now conducting a thematic analysis of the top-cited
publications, to determine the research questions, research methods, and theoretical frameworks
being used as foundations for blended learning research. Due to the timeliness of our findings,
as well as article length restrictions, we publish our initial findings separately from the in-depth
thematic analysis.
In this article, we first review the methods used to determine the most impactful research
on blended learning. We then present our findings regarding the top publications in the study of
blended learning. Finally, we discuss the implications for the future of research on blended
learning.
Methodology
Overview
We surveyed publications on blended learning to determine the works and the authors
most frequently cited in other scholarship, compiling a list of the top 50 articles, the top 25 book
chapters, and the top 10 books, as well as the 15 top non-academic publications (Research
Questions 1, 2, 3, and 4). We then listed in what journals and books these publications appeared
(Research Question 5) and coded each publication for context (Research Question 6).
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Searching Procedure, Selection Criteria and Analysis Process
Identify database/source for publications. Our research questions asked which
publications on the subject of blended learning have been most frequently cited in other
academic publications. We utilized Harzing’s Publish or Perish software program (Harzing,
2011), which retrieves and calculates academic citations from Google Scholar (see Figure 1).
We sought an alternative to the ISI IF rating, which gives citation metrics for journals, not
individual articles. ISI is also less able to provide a “real time search” than Publish or Perish; as
of 2010 Google Scholar had only a 9-day delay between article posting online and retrieval in
Google Scholar (Chen, 2010). Finally, educational publications, and publications from the fields
of distance and blended learning in particular, are not represented well in the ISI databases (West
& Rich, 2013). Thus Google Scholar overcomes many of the issues that plague the traditional IF
and is a useful starting point for determining works with significant currency, resonance,
timeliness, and influence to field of blended learning.
Insert Figure 1 about here.
Identify keywords used for the searches. We searched for publications about blended
or hybrid learning from the years 2000 to 2011. We employed the following search terms:
"blended learning," "blended instruction," "blended course," "blended environment," “blended
class," "blended program," "hybrid learning," "hybrid instruction," "hybrid course," "hybrid
environment," "hybrid class," "hybrid program.”
Google Scholar indexes results by crawling full-text content available from commercial
and open-source publishers (Vines, 2006), and appears to favor full-text retrievals (Chen, 2010).
However, although the intent may be to index full text, this may not always be the reality. Thus
it is possible, though unlikely, that our retrievals missed items that had one of our phrases in the
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


full text, but not in the portion of text to which Google Scholar had access. Publish or Perish has
the option to search titles only (though not an option to search titles and abstracts), but we
rejected this narrowing option out of concern that it might exclude important publications. We
also did not limit our searches to publications in specific disciplines, since blending occurs
across fields. The initial search resulted in excess of 9,500 titles on “blended”; the “hybrid”
results were in excess of 16,500 retrievals. All retrievals with zero citations were immediately
discarded, as were non-English publications and conference proceedings.
Identify narrowing down process. As a result of not narrowing the disciplines searched,
many publications were retrieved that did not relate to “blended” or “hybrid” in our intended
sense: “Blended learning systems combine face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated
instruction” (Graham, 2006, p. 5). The hybrid search retrievals were especially cluttered with
non-relevant titles such as, “Hybrid approach for including electronic and nuclear quantum
effects in molecular dynamics simulations of hydrogen transfer reactions in enzymes” from The
Journal of Chemical Physics. We discarded publications that did not fit in our stated definition
of blended learning, as well as those in which blended or hybrid learning was peripheral rather
than central. When the lead researcher felt uncertain about a publication’s relevancy, a second
researcher was consulted.
We next sorted retrievals into categories—article, chapter, book, or “other”—and then
ordered them by number of citations. Based on the total number of citations, we selected the top
50 articles, the top 25 edited book chapters, and the top 10 books for analysis in this study. We
chose these particular quantities not only because they seemed fairly reasonable, but also because
in each category the citations per year became relatively low by that point.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


We recognized that our selection criteria system favored older publications that have had
more time to accrue citations. We thus created lists for the five top-cited articles from 2009 (two
of which were already included in the top 50), 2010, and 2011. However, 2011 only had two
relevant article retrievals; clearly, not enough time has passed for these articles to accrue
citations, despite their merit. This left us with a total of 60 articles for analysis, in addition to the
books and edited chapters. Non-academic sources—white papers, reports, newsletters, and non-
academic magazines--were also noted for general interest (see Table 4).
Results
Most Impactful Articles
Scholarly articles are the lifeblood of research, and are especially important when
considering the “conversations” occurring around any area of interest. We determined the 50
most-cited articles that focus on blended or hybrid learning. Figure 2 features the top 10 articles;
a full list including titles of the top 50 articles by citations is provided in Appendix A.
Place Figure 2 About Here
Garrison & Kanuka’s (2004) article on the transformative power of blended learning tops
the list of impactful articles, with almost twice as many citations per year as any other article.
Focusing on higher education, this theoretical piece argued that blended learning had become an
inevitable step for all universities, one that would “redefin[e] higher education institutions as
being learning centered and facilitat[e] a higher learning experience” (p. 104). For Garrison and
Kanuka, blended learning is transformative because it fundamentally reconceptualizes and
reorganizes the teaching and learning dynamic, causing educators to "seriously reflect on how to
design and deliver higher education" (p. 99) and resulting in something different from either
face-to-face or online learning. By improving the quality and quantity of interaction, the authors
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


believed that blended learning increases the sense of engagement in a community of inquiry (p.
97). Widespread academic interest in community of inquiry is only one reason for this article's
importance, we believe; its focus on the transformative potential of blended learning may
indicate a general concern among blended learning researchers that blended learning be
transformative, not merely enhancing or enabling. Like Garrison and Kanuka, other blended
learning researchers are also interested in "mov[ing] higher education from the 19th century to
the 21st century" (p. 103).
The prominence of Ruiz, Mintzer, and Leipzig’s (2006) article, ranked as the 2nd most-
cited article on blended learning, demonstrates the interest that medical education has had in
blended learning. The authors introduced the concept of e-learning (“the use of Internet
technologies to enhance knowledge and performance,” p. 207) and noted that “[a]lthough some
medical institutions have tried to use e-learning as a stand-alone solution to updating or
expanding their curricula, it is best to begin with an integrated strategy that considers the benefits
and burdens of blended learning before revising the curriculum” (p. 211). According to the
authors, medical students see e-learning complementing, not replacing, traditional face-to-face
instruction, “forming part of a blended-learning strategy” (p. 207). This article represents a
seminal work within medical education on blended learning.
Four articles hover near the 30-citations per year marker: Osguthorpe and Graham
(2003), Singh (2003), Rovai and Jordan (2004), and Oliver and Trigwell (2005). Osguthorpe and
Graham (2003) proposed a definition of blended learning that emphasized the pedagogical desire
to "maximize the benefits of both face-to-face and online methods—using the web for what it
does best and using class time for what it does best" (p. 227) (an argument related to the
integrated strategy suggested by Ruiz et al.). With pedagogy foremost in mind, Osguthorpe and
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Graham identified six goals for educators design blended environments: pedagogical richness,
access to knowledge, social interaction, personal agency, cost effectiveness, and ease of revision
(p. 231). Singh (2003) likewise attempted to categorize thinking about blending. He suggested
that in blending one examine the eight dimensions proposed in Badrul Khan’s Octagonal
Framework—institutional, pedagogical, technological, interface design, evaluation,
management, resource support, and ethical (p. 53-54). Doing so would increase the likelihood of
a meaningful learning experience. However, Oliver and Trigwell (2005) argued against the use
of the very term “blended learning.” From a philosophical standpoint, they asserted, the idea of
“blending” depends on the idea of dichotomies that the authors felt were suspect within the
context of learning with technology. They also felt that blended learning had rarely been studied
from the perspective of the learner; “[w]hat is actually being addressed are forms of instruction,
teaching, or at best, pedagogies” (p. 17). But Rovai and Jordan (2004) proposed that blended
learning might be the synthesis of three significant changes occurring in education: increased
integration of technology into traditional classrooms, increased recognition of the importance of
promoting a sense of community among learners, and increased desire to create learning-
centered classrooms. This article was the only of the four to present research findings; using a
causal-comparative design, the authors compared three instructional formats—traditional,
blended, and fully online—to examine whether differences existed among student perceptions of
sense of community at the end of term. Their findings suggested that “blended courses produce
a stronger sense of community among students than either traditional or fully online courses” (p.
1).
The articles that appear in our top 10 list appear to be those seminal to the area of blended
learning, with a focus on the vision for or the definitions of blended learning. However, we were
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


concerned that the more recent rising articles were almost completely excluded; only two articles
from 2009 made the top 50 list (Appendix A). Thus we listed the top articles from 2009-2011 in
Table 1.
Place Table 1 About Here
Several interesting observations may be made by reviewing these more recent articles.
First, it is interesting to note that there is little overlap in the authors from the seminal early years
to the later ones (2009-2011). Only Garrison appears in both the seminal and the recent list.
This may be a weakness of the research domain: Have the major seminal authors stopped
publishing in this area? Or have they moved to publishing books and chapters? Or have they just
published less impactful articles that haven’t made the list? Secondly, we noticed that two
journals feature highly in the 2009-2011 list: Computers & Education and British Journal of
Educational Technology. It may be that these journals are at the forefront of the blended
learning conversations. Finally, the titles of these articles indicate a move towards a less
definitional and more research-based focus in publications on blended learning.
Looking at all 60 titles, we see the diversity of interest in blended learning. In addition to
instructional technology, other fields that have done significant work in blended learning include
medicine and nursing, business, engineering, political science, teacher education, biology,
statistics, and English. We also notice a grey area between the subjects of blended learning and
online learning, which we will discuss in greater depth later.
Most Impactful Book Chapters
Over the last three or four years, there has been a proliferation of edited books addressing
blended learning. We looked at the top 25 edited book chapters and the top 10 books (next
subsection). The top-cited chapters primarily come from the years 2005 and 2006, “bumper
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


crop” years in part because of The handbook of blended learning. However, the top 10 books
span a wider period of time and include more recent publications.
We first determined the top 25 edited book chapters based on number of total citations.
The chapter which ranked 25th had only 13 total citations, so we chose not to cushion additional
recent articles, with the total citations already so low. Figure 3 features the 10 top-cited chapters;
the full list of all 25 chapters appears in Appendix B. The source of many of these chapters is
The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, edited by Bonk and
Graham (2006). This book will be discussed in the next subsection, but it bears noting its
significance as an oft-cited text in research on blended learning.
The top-cited chapter is this text’s introductory chapter, “Blended learning systems.”
Graham (2006) fleshed out a definition of the term blended learning; discussed four critical
dimensions of interaction (space, time, fidelity, and humanness) present in online, blended, and
face-to-face modalities; explained reasons for choosing to blend (increased cost effectiveness,
increased access and flexibility, and improved pedagogy); categorized levels (activity, course,
program, and institution) and types (enabling, enhancing, and transforming) of blending;
discussed challenges to blending; and highlighted important future trends in the study and
application of blended learning. Giving coverage to so many definitional concepts in blended
learning, Graham’s chapter has been frequently cited by subsequent blended learning research.
Two chapters by Chuck Dziuban made our top ten chapters list. Both argued, as did
Garrison and Kanuka (2004), for the transformative potential of blended learning. Dziuban,
Moskal, and Hartman (2005) claimed that the very metaphors for higher education were being
changed by blended learning: from “Knowledge is power”—the view of the university as a

doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


bastion of sequestered knowledge—to “The ability to use knowledge effectively is power,” for
students already have, outside the confines of the university, immediate access to data,
information, and knowledge. Yet the authors found that Millennials (born 1981-1994) were least
satisfied with blended courses, and suggested this might reflect their cooperative approach to
problem solving and yet another metaphor to learning: “Knowledge is teamwork” (p. 13).
Elliott Masie, whose 2002 chapter ranks 4th on our list, came from the corporate realm
and represents blended learning’s foray into the corporate training area in advance of trending in
higher education. Masie argued that humans are, by nature and by historical precedence,
“blended learners” (p. 58). As a result, the “single-method learning” that dominated the early
days of e-learning, was off-putting and ineffective; whereas blended learning "adds significantly
greater opportunity for the learner to master the material and move towards transfer and
performance" (p. 59). In the future, Masie predicted, blended learning would promote life-long
learning and accommodate various learning style preferences.
Figure 3 makes the field look almost stagnant, as nothing made the top 10 list after 2006.
However, in Appendix B one can see that top-cited chapters published after 2006 include
Edirisingha, Salmon, & Fothergill (2007) with 16 total citations; Graham & Robison (2007) and
Kaleta, Skibba, & Joosten (2007) with 15 total citations each. As we noted, many new edited
books on blended learning have appeared in the last few years, and chapters from these will
surely gain influence over time. Additionally, it appears that in general chapters are cited much
less frequently than articles and books.
Most Impactful Books
We next determined the 10 most-cited books about blended learning. Figure 4 features
the top 10 chapters; a detailed list of titles and authors appear in Appendix C.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


When judged by total citations, the most impactful book on blended learning was The
handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (Bonk & Graham, 2006),
having been cited more than 470 times in other publications. This book has 39 chapters with
cases of blended learning from around the world in higher education, corporate, and military
contexts. Chapters address a range of issues from pedagogical strategies to return on investment.
As we saw, 14 of the 25 top-cited book chapters came from this seminal text.
Slightly more impactful when judged by citations per year, was Blended learning in
higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). This
book grounds practical examples of blended learning activities and courses in the Community of
Inquiry theoretical framework (Garrison & Archer, 2007), one of the more widely theoretical
frameworks in distance education literature. The book’s themes echo the concerns of many of
the other top-cited publications: the transformative potential of blended learning, and the
possibility of combining the “best of both worlds.”
We were still concerned that newer books might be left out, and so reviewed retrievals
from 2009-2011 to see if any recently published books had garnered numerous citations. Only
three titles had five citations or more: Latchem and Jung (2010) with 12 citations; Inoue (2010)
with six citations; and Stacey and Gerbic (2009) with five citations. Despite having little time to
accrue citations, Latchem and Jung’s Distance and blended learning in Asia bring an important
perspective from Asian countries. The authors noted that face-to-face communication and
context are culturally important in Asia, making blended learning preferable to completely online
instruction. The two latter were both edited books. The few remaining book retrievals had three
citations or less.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Most Impactful White Papers, Reports, Non-academic Magazines
In addition to publications springing from the academic realm, much has been written on
blended learning in trade journals, white papers, educational reports, and other non-academic
publications. Indeed, Figure 5 (see Appendix D for details) makes apparent the early foray
(2001-2003) of industry into blended learning (Carman, 2002; Driscoll, 2002; Singh & Reed,
2001). As noted in our opening quotation, by 2001 blended learning “all pervasive in the
training industry” (Reay, 2001). After the early advance into blended learning from the
corporate world, higher education began publishing on the subject (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002;
Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta, 2002), although some of the authors featured here also research
areas from the corporate environment, such as human performance technology (Collis & van der
Wende, 2002; Rosset, Douglis, & Frazee, 2003). But again, we see a dearth of K-12 research in
blended learning, in the non-academic as well as the academic settings. Nevertheless, as blended
learning increases in the K-12 arena, we anticipate that the Innosight Institute’s report, “The rise
of K-12 blended learning,” and the follow-up “Classifying K-12 Blended Learning” will rise to
become an important publication in the area of K-12 blended learning (Staker, Chan, Clayton,
Hernandez, Horn, & Mackey, 2011; Staker & Horn, 2012).
Two important reports—Allen and Seaman (2003) sponsored by the Sloan Consortium
and the recent Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, and Jones (2009) sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Education—featured most prominently in our list of top-cited non-academic
publications. The Sloan Consortium works in higher education to integrate and improve online
and blended learning. Allen and Seaman surveyed both online and blended learning programs,
asking whether students, institutions, and faculty would embrace online education as a delivery
method. The answer for students and institutions was a resounding yes; the results for faculty
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


were less clear. Means et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of 99 studies on online learning,
and found, among other things, that blended instruction, “on average, had stronger learning
outcomes than did face-to-face instruction alone” (p. 19). In fact, the effect size for blended
approaches contrasted against face-to-face instruction was larger than the contrast between
purely online and face-to-face instruction at a statistically significant level (Q = 8.367, p < .01)
(see p. 28). Additionally, they found only a very small number of rigorous published studies
comparing online and face-to-face learning at the K-12 level: only 5 studies met their criteria for
inclusion in the meta-analysis. .
Most Impactful Authors
A total of 220 different authors contributed to publications in our lists of the top-cited
articles, edited book chapters, books, and reports. Figure 6 features only those scholars with two
or more top-cited publications (n=16). This allowed us to show scholars making repeated
contributions to the study of blended learning and dampened the effect that a single “best-seller”
would give an author. In addition, we awarded “author points” to reflect both number of citations
in top-cited publications and authorship rank. One author point was awarded per citation to lead
authors; ½ author point was awarded per citation to non-lead authors. In addition to calculating
total author points in this manner, we calculated the average author points per top-cited
publication. Thus, if an author had been cited 200 times in a publication for which he was 2nd
author, he would receive 100 points; if an additional top-cited publication, for which he was lead
author, was cited 100 times, he would receive another 100 points. His 200 total author points
would be divided by two, the number of top-cited publications, to give him an average author
points per publication score of 100.

doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


The author with the highest total author points was Randy Garrison (932 total author
points; 186 average author points per publication). Garrison had five different publications
making our top-cited lists, including the top-cited journal article and the book with the highest
average citations per year. Garrison’s critical work on Community of Inquiry has formed a
theoretical backbone for much of blended and distance learning research, and he has repeatedly
argued for the transformative potential of blended learning. Charles Graham (858 total author
points; 172 average author points per publication) similarly had five different publications
making the top-cited lists. In addition to co-editing The handbook of blended learning and
writing its introductory chapter, “Blended learning systems,” Graham was lead author on two
additional top-cited chapters and second author for the 3rd most-cited article. Curtis Bonk
(author points 703; average author points per publication 176) was the lead co-editor of The
handbook of blended learning as well as having a chapter and journal article in the top 10 lists.
Chuck Dziuban (author points 286; average author points per publication 143) was the first
author in all three of his top-cited publications. He has been leading research efforts in blended
learning at the University of Central Florida for over a decade in collaboration with colleagues
like Patsy Moskal and Joel Hartman. Harvey Singh (author points 424; average author points per
publication 212) was a very early contributor to blended learning publications, with a top-cited
article from 2003 and a top-cited white paper from 2001. Norman Vaughan (author points 246;
average author points per publication 123) has worked closely with Garrison on the book with
the most average cites per year and an article that made the top journal articles list.
Most Impactful Journals
Sixty different articles on blended learning were featured in our top-cited articles list.
Figure 7 shows which journals contributed most to those top-cited articles; the three greatest
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


contributors were British Journal of Educational Technology, The Internet and Higher
Education, and Computers & Education. These journals, which published the most impactful
articles on blended learning, are also deemed “high impact” among education journals by their
ISI impact ratings as well.
Interestingly, none of the journals selected by Moore (2004) as the top journal in distance
education were among our top journals in blended learning research. Moore highlighted The
American Journal of Distance Education, The Journal of Distance Education, Distance
Education, and Open Learning as “the longer established, and therefore more reputable and
authoritative journals” of distance education (p. 129). However, The Journal of Distance
Education and Open Learning had only one article each which made our list of top-cited articles,
and The American Journal of Distance Education and Distance Education both had none. The
top-cited research on blended learning has, thus far, been published in journals other than those
deemed most impactful in the field of distance education. This corresponds to the comment
recently made by an editor to one of us, that very few blended learning citations came from the
major distance education journals. Yet at least five major meta-analyses in distance education
directly address the concept of blended learning (see Graham, 2012, in press). Possible reasons
for this finding will be discussed henceforth.
Contexts
What contexts is this blended learning research taking place in? We coded each top-cited
publication for learner type context (higher education, corporate, K-12, or all); the results are
displayed in Figure 8. We found that the vast majority—66.1%—of our publications focused
solely on the higher education setting. Nearly twenty percent of our publications focused on all
settings, while 12.5% focused on corporate/organizational training. Only two publications—

doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


1.8% of our top-cited publications—focused on the K-12 setting, and even then Unwin (2005)
looked at blended learning for pre- and in-service teachers in K-12 settings. Picciano and
Seaman (2007), the 12th ranked article, was also “one of the first studies to collect data on and to
compare fully online and blended learning in K–12 schools” (p. 11).
Insert Figure 8 About Here
We noticed some obvious trends and gaps in research. For a broad look at blended
learning, books cover a wide range of contexts. Articles are more heavily focused on higher
education contexts. Those interested in corporate settings will find the highest concentration of
applicable publications among white papers, reports, and other non-academic publications. For
those interested in K-12—it is fairly uncharted territory. Blended learning is already exploding
in the K-12 arena; Picciano and Seaman (2009) noted that in their 2008 survey of U.S. school
district administrators, 41.0% of responding public school districts had students enrolled in
blended courses, and an additional 21.2% planned to have at least one student take a blended
course by 2011. It is likely that research on blended learning in the K-12 arena will follow suit
and expand rapidly.
Discussion & Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to better understand where the major conversations about
blended learning are occurring and to identify key authors, journals, and manuscripts that are
impacting the conversations. There are limitations inherent to studies like this that use massive
databases like Google Scholar to collect and synthesize data (Chen, 2010; Vines, 2006),
including inaccuracies in citations and unavailable full text for relevant publications. Despite
limitations that might produce a few inaccuracies resulting in minor changes to an article’s
citation count or an occasional article not being indexed or found in a search, we feel that the
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


benefits of being able to access a high-level view to publication patterns outweigh the potential
downsides.
One global observation highlighted by the findings is that very little of the conversation
about blended learning seems to be happening in the core distance education journals. Currently
the journals where most of the explicit conversations about blended learning are taking place are
journals that focus on research related to educational technology and welcome both distance
education research as well as technology integration research. We are not sure exactly why this
is the case. Many of the top blended learning authors are also prominent distance education
researchers. Several recent meta-analyses in distance education prominently raise the issue of
blended learning (Means et al., 2009; Bernard et al., 2009). Blended learning, though distinct
from distance education, spans distance education and the related discipline of instructional
technology. Perhaps distance education research has taken some time to accept blended learning
as a legitimate offspring. For example, Michael Moore, a prominent editor and leader in the
distance education research community, expressed his concern that terms like open learning and
blended learning “conflate distance education and ‘contiguous’ education” (Moore, 2007, p.
89). Thus it ispossible that authors are electing to submit blended learning research to non-
distance education journals or deemphasizing the blended context of their research because they
are unsure about how editors of distance education journals will view research that involves the
intersection of both online and face-to-face elements. However, the 3rd edition of Moore’s The
handbook of distance education will include a chapter that addresses emerging practice and
research in blended learning (Graham, 2012, in press), providing further evidence of the close
connection between research in the two contexts. It is the authors’ view that because of the rapid
growth of blended learning instruction and the potential of blended learning to be a stepping-
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


stone to fully online instruction, the more mature field of distance education should embrace
blended learning and take a more active role in shaping blended learning research.
Additional reasons may account for the scarcity of blended learning conversations in
primary distance education journals. There is some evidence that a significant amount of the
research that has been done under the title of “online” or “distance” learning is actually studying
the online elements of a blended learning implementation where students also have opportunities
for face-to-face instruction (Means et al., 2009). Alternatively, some systems combine face-to-
face teaching and distance learning without referring to it as “blended” or “hybrid” learning, as
in the National Institute of Open Schooling in India (Latchem & Jung, 2010; Yasmeen & Roy,
2010). Finally, it might be that in general distance education journals are not well-cited,
although as noted the three journals which had to greatest number of top-cited articles all also
have relatively high IF ratings, at least for the field of education.
A second global observation from this research is that most of the seminal work in
blended learning to this point has not been empirical in nature, but rather has focused on
definitions, models, and the potential of blended learning. This is natural for the early stage of
blended learning research, especially where there is competition for time between design,
development, and research. However, it is time for researchers to move beyond this stage, as
some of the most recent impactful articles on blended learning seem to be doing (see Table 1). It
is telling that so few of the prominent authors have multiple articles showing up in the top
blended learning research lists. The titles of the articles alone provide little evidence for any
coherency around particular research issues or theoretical developments; further research needs
to be done looking specifically at the content of the most-cited works to see what patterns exist.
We feel that it is very important as blended learning research advances that clear theoretical
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


frameworks be articulated that can provide coherency and depth to the research conversations.
This can help to avoid the threat identified by Burkhardt and Schoenfeld (2003) that “a lack of
attention to coherent theory building [can] leave us looking balkanized and incoherent, the whole
of education being less than the sum of its parts” (p. 13).
It is notable that there is such a lack of blended learning research in K-12
environments. There is evidence that online and blended learning options are becoming
increasingly popular with massive opportunities for growth in this market (Picciano & Seaman,
2007; Staker et al., 2011; Picciano, Seaman, Shea, & Swan, 2012). Blended learning at the K-12
level is likely to become even more important than it has been in higher education because of a
culture in which school provides not only academic instruction but also the physical monitoring
of students while parents work; many current K-12 blended learning environments do not reduce
“seat time” (an almost fundamental component of some definitions of blending), but continue the
supervisory role while engaging students in online activities, small-group work, whole-class
instruction, and one-on-one tuturing (see Staker & Horn, 2012). There will be a great need for
researchers to look at blended learning in K-12 contexts, where adolescent learners have very
different needs from adult learners (Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark, 2009; Moore, 2007).
Finally, although a more detailed thematic analysis of these top-cited publications has not
yet been completed, we have some preliminary observations about the key points being made in
many of these impactful publications. If Garrison and Kanuka’s (2004) top-cited article is any
indicator, researchers of blended learning are interested in the transformative potential of
blending. Other top-cited publications interested in the potential to transform learning are
Dziuban et al., 2005; Dziuban et al., 2006; Graham and Robinson, 2007; and Garrison and
Vaughan, 2008. Another key theme is the importance of determining how to maximize the
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


benefits of the two modalities, face-to-face and online learning (Ruiz et al., 2006; Osguthorpe &
Graham, 2003; Masie, 2002; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). A very strong focus of the top-cited
research on blended learning is pedagogical and focused on student learning outcomes as
opposed to issues of access and cost effectiveness.
A recent synthesis of blended learning research emphasizes future research related to
issues of learning effectiveness, learner satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, access and flexibility,
and cost effectiveness (Graham, 2012, in press). Two of these—access and cost effectiveness—
have received very little attention in graduate dissertations and theses (Drysdale, Graham,
Spring, & Halverson, in review), which could indicate both lack of research interest among the
senior faculty mentors of graduate student as well as among emerging new scholars. More
empirical research is needed to back up the frequently heard claims that blended learning
improves access and cost effectiveness. Additionally, evidence suggests a lack of theoretical
coherence among blended learning research, due in part to the relative age of blended learning as
an area of inquiry (Graham, 2012, in press; Drysdale, Graham, Spring, & Halverson, in review).
An important area for future scholarship is theoretical development focusing on issues that
distinguish blended learning contexts from purely distance learning and technology enhanced
learning environments.
Future blended learning research may look more specifically at pedagogy and design
(Graham, 2012, in press). What specific blended learning strategies are most effective for
particular contexts, including various disciplines and learner types? What are the costs relative
to the success of these optimized blended learning experiences? What specific blended learning
design features are linked to increased student and faculty satisfaction? What root causes are
responsible for improved learning outcomes in blended learning contexts? From an institutional
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


perspective, there are many research issues related to the effective and efficient adoption and
implementation of blended learning initiatives (Graham, Woodfield, & Harrison, 2012, in pres).
We look forward to the future development of blended learning research. As this
research grows more empirical, more grounded theoretically, and spreads into the K-12 contexts
which can provide a natural home for blended instruction, both scholars and practitioners will
better understand how blended learning can live up to its potential to be a transformative, “best
of both worlds” force in education.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


References
Akyol, Z., & 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.01029.x
Allan, B. (2007). Blended learning: Tools for teaching and training. London: Facet Publishing.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online
education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Retrieved from The Sloan Consortium
website:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Sizing+the+Opportunit
y:+The+quality+and+extent+of+online+education#0
Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-
based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 36, 217-235. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00454.x
Alvarez, S. (2005). Blended learning solutions. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
educational technology.
Arbaugh, J. B., Godfrey, M. R., Johnson, M., Pollack, B. L., Niendorf, B., & Wresch, W. (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. doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.006
Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment.
Educational Media International, 41, 245-252. doi:10.1080/09523980410001680851
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Ausburn, L. J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online
education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41,
327-337. doi:10.1080/0952398042000314820
Aycock, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Lessons learned from the hybrid course project.
Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6), 9–21. Retrieved from
http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham2.htm
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., 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. doi:
10.3102/0034654309333844
Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons
learned. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Bielawski, L., & Metcalf, D. (2003). Blended eLearning: Integrating knowledge, performance
support, and online learning. Amherst, MA: HRD Press, Inc.
Bliuc, A.-M., Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2010). Learning through face-to-face and
online discussions: Associations between students’ conceptions, approaches and
academic performance in political science. British Journal of Educational Technology,
41, 512-524. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00966.x
Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives,
local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Bonk, C. J., Kim, K.J., & Zeng, T. (2006). Future directions of blended learning in higher
education and workplace learning settings. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 550-567). San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Bonk, C. J., Olson, T. M., Wisher, R. A., & Orvis, K. L. (2002). Learning from focus groups: An
examination of blended learning. Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 97-118.
Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde
Bourne, J., Harris, D, & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning anywhere,
anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 131-146.
Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Pickard, P. (2003). Using blended learning to
improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media, 28,
165-178. doi:10.1080/1358165032000153160
Brown, B. W., & Liedholm, C. E. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of
microeconomics? The American Economic Review, 92, 444-448. doi:
10.1257/000282802320191778
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more
useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3-
14. doi:10.3102/0013189X032009003
Carman, J. M. (2002). Blended learning design: Five key ingredients. KnowledgeNet.com.
Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online
learning: A review of open access literature. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1-13.
Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact
of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers &
Education, 54, 1222-1232. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Chen, X. (2010). Google scholar’s dramatic coverage improvement five years after debut. Serials
Review, 36(4), 221-226. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2010.08.002
Chew, E., Turner, D. A., and Jones, N. (2010). In love and war: Blended learning theories for
computer scientist and educationalists. In F. L. Wang, J. Fong, and R. Kwan (Eds.), The
handbook of research on hybrid learning models: Advanced tools, technologies, and
applications (pp. 1-23). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-380-7.ch001
Clayton, K., Blumberg, F., & Auld, D. P. (2010). The relationship between motivation, learning
strategies and choice of environment whether traditional or including an online
component. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 349-364. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00993.x
Collis, B., & Wende, M. V. D. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education: An
international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher
education. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.
Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based student think about the
quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 501-
512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00482.x
Condie, R., & Livingston, K. (2007). Blending online learning with traditional approaches:
Changing practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 337-348.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00630.x
Cooner, T. S. (2010). Creating opportunities for students in large cohorts to reflect in and on
practice: Lessons learnt from a formative evaluation of students’ experiences of a
technology-enhanced blended learning design. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41, 271-286. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00933.x
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two
blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 183-193.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00084.x
Derntl, M., & Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended
learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 111-130.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.03.002
Derouin, R. E., Fritzsche, B. A., & Salas, E. (2005). E-learning in organizations. Journal of
Management, 31, 920-940. doi:10.1177/0149206305279815
Douglis, F. (2002). Blended learning: Choosing the right blend. In B. Hoffman (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of educational technology. Department of Educational Technology, San
Diego State University. Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20050831174229/http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/blendlearning/
Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. E-Learning Magazine 3(3).
54.
Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (in review). Analysis of
research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning.
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the
mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195-208). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning and the
generations: Knowledge is power-no more. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements
of quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 85-100). Needham, MA: The
Sloan Consortium.
Edirisingha, P., Salmon G., & Fothergill, J. (2007). Profcasting – a pilot study and guidelines for
integrating podcasts in a blended learning environment. In U. Bernath & A. Sangrà
(Eds.), Research on competence development in online distance education and e-learning
(pp. 127-137). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag.

doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. (2006). How and what university students
learn through online and face-‐to-‐face discussion: Conceptions, intentions and approaches.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 244-256. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2006.00173.x
El Mansour, B., & Mupinga, D. (2007). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid
and online classes. College Student Journal, 41, 242-248. Retrieved from
http://www.projectinnovation.biz/college_student_journal
Finn, A. (2002). Trends in e-learning [electronic version]. Learning Circuits, 3. Retrieved from
http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/nov2002/finn.htm
Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology
Today, 8(6). Retrieved from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham.htm
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of
inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5-9.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003
Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2007). A theory of community of inquiry. In M. G. Moore
(Ed.), The handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 77-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential
in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework,
principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between
on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10,
53-64. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.003
Glogoff, S. (2005). Instructional blogging: Promoting interactivity, student-centered learning,
and peer input. Innovate, 1(5). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/
Gonzalez, C. (2004). The role of blended learning in the world of technology. Benchmarks
Online. Retrieved from
http://www.unt.edu/benchmarks/archives/2004/september04/eis.htm
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future
directions. In C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning:
Graham, C. R. (2012, in press). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G.
Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and challenges of blended learning
environments. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and
technology (pp. 253-259). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
Graham, C. R., & Robison, R. (2007). Realizing the transformational potential of blended
learning: Comparing cases of transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher
education. In A. G. Picciano & C. D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research
perspectives (pp. 83-110). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2012, in press). A framework for institutional
adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and
Higher Education.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Hall, H., & Davison, B. (2007). Social software as support in hybrid learning environments: The
value of the blog as a tool for reflective learning and peer support. Library & Information
Science Research, 29, 163-187. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2007.04.007
Hanson, K. S., & Clem, F. A. (2006). To blend or not to blend: A look at community
development via blended learning strategies. The handbook of blended learning: Global
perspectives, local designs (pp. 136–149). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Harzing, A. W. (2011). Publish or Perish, version 3. Available at www.harzing.com/pop.htm.
Hoic-Bozic, N., Mornar, V, & Boticki, I. (2009). A blended learning approach to course design
and implementation. IEEE Transactions on Education, 52, 19-30. doi:
10.1109/TE.2007.914945
Hofmann, J. (2006). Why blended learning hasn’t (yet) fulfilled its promises: Answers to those
questions that keep you up at night. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook
of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 27-40). San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer Publishing.
Howard, J. (2012, February 28). Tracking scholarly influence beyond the impact factor.
Chronicle of Higher Education, Wired Campus. [Online]. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/tracking-scholarly-influence-beyond-the-impact-
factor/35565
Huang, R., & Zhou, Y. (2006). Designing blended learning focused on knowledge category and
learning activities: Case studies from Beijing Normal University. The handbook of
blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 296-310). San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer Publishing.
Inoue, Y. (2010). Cases on online and blended learning technologies in higher education:
Concepts and practices. Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-880-
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Jones, N. (2006). E-College Wales, a case study of blended learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R.
Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs
(pp. 182-194). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Jung, I., & Suzuki, K. (2006). Blended learning in Japan and its application in liberal arts
education. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning:
Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., & Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid
courses. In A. G. Picciano & C. D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research
perspectives (pp. 111-143). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Kerres, M., & De Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning.
Journal of Educational Media, 28, 101-113. doi:10.1080/1358165032000165653
Kim, K.-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education:
The survey says…. Educause Quarterly, 29(4), 22-30.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/archive/eq
King, K. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development.
The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 231-246. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00104-5
Kirkley, S. E., & Kirkley, J. R. (2004). Creating next generation blended learning environments
using mixed reality, video games and simulations. TechTrends, 49(3), 42-53, 89.
doi:10.1007/BF02763646
Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (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. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00050.x
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Klein, J.D., Spector, J.M., Grabowski, B., & de la Teja, I. (2004). Instructor competencies:
Standards for face-to-face, online, and blended settings. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Latchem, C. & Jung, I. (2010). Distance and blended learning in Asia. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Laurillard, D. (2007). Modelling benefits-oriented costs for technology enhanced learning.

Higher Education, 54, 21-39. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9044-2
Leh, A. S. (2002). Action research on hybrid courses and their online communities. Educational
Media International, 39, 31-38. doi:10.1080/0952398021013120
Lewis, N. J., & Orton, P. Z. (2006). Blending learning for business impact: IBM’s case for
learning success. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended
learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 61-75). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer
Publishing.
Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in
a blended learning context. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/189/271
Macdonald, J. (2008). Blended learning and online tutoring. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing
Limited.
Mantyla, K. (2001). Blending e-learning. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Marsh, G. E., McFadden, A. C., & Price, B. J. (2003). Blended instruction: Adapting
conventional instruction for large class. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 6(4). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter64/marsh64.htm
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Martyn, M. (2003). The Hybrid Online Model: Good Practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18-
23. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/archive/eq
Masie, E. (2002). Blended learning: The magic is in the mix. In A. Rossett (Ed.), The ASTD e-
learning handbook: Best practices, strategies, and case studies for an emerging field (pp.
58-63). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Masie, E. (2006). The blended learning imperative. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-
based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning
studies. Retrieved from the United States Department of Education website:
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
Milne, A. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experience. In D. Oblinger
(Ed.), Learning Spaces (pp. 27-72). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/research-
and-publications/books/learning-spaces
Moore, J. (2005). The Sloan consortium quality framework and the five pillars. Needham, MA:
Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C). Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/books/qualityframework.pdf
Moore, M. G. (2004). Editorial: Research worth publishing. American Journal of Distance
Education, 18(3), 127-130. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1803_1
Moore, M. G. (2007). A theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of
distance education (2nd ed., pp. 89-105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Moore, M. G. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Mortera-Gutiérrez, F. (2006). Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning and
face-to-face instruction. International Journal on E-Learning, 5, 313-337. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/6079
Motteram, G. (2006). “Blended’”education and the transformation of teachers: A long-term case

study in postgraduate UK higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology,
37, 17-30. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00511.x
Nicol, D., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in

relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. In C. Bryan & K. Klegg (Eds.),
Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 1-14). London: Taylor & Francis.
Retrieved from http://www.reap.ac.uk/reap/public/Papers/Nicol_Milligan_150905.pdf
Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from
faculty members. Computers & Education, 56, 689-699. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.011
Olapiriyakul, K., & Scher, J. M. (2006). A guide to establishing hybrid learning courses:
Employing information technology to create a new learning experience, and a case study.
The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 287-301. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.001
Oliver, R., Herrington, J., & Reeves, T. C. (2006). Creating authentic learning environments
through blended learning approaches. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can “blended learning” be redeemed? E-learning, 2, 17-26.
doi:10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.2
Oravec, J. A. (2003). Blending by blogging: Weblogs in blended learning initiatives. Journal of
Educational Media, 28, 225-233. doi:10.1080/1358165032000165671
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and
directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 227-234.
http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=58
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in
the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53,
1285-1296. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.011
Owston, R. D., Garrison, R. D., & Cook, K. (2006). Blended learning at Canadian Universities:
Issues and practices. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended
learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 338-350). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer
Publishing.
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district
administrators. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C). Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/pages/K-12_Online_Learning.pdf
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of
U.S. school district administrators. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C).
Retrieved from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/k-
12_online_learning_2008.pdf
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of
online learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 127-135.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.004
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., and Neylon, C. (2011, September 28). Altmetrics: A
manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
Reay, J. (2001). Blended learning—a fusion for the future. Knowledge Management Review,
4(3), 6. http://www.melcrum.com/products/journals/kmr.shtml
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Research in context: Article-level metrics. (2009). Retrieved from the Public Library of Science
website: http://article-level-metrics.plos.org/
Riffell, S., & Sibley, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate
biology courses: An evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers & Education, 44,
217-235. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.01.005
Rivera, J. C., McAlister, M. K., & Rice, M. L. (2002). A comparison of student outcomes &
satisfaction between traditional & web based course offerings. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration. 5(3). http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/
Rooney, J. E. (2003). Knowledge infusion: Blending learning opportunities to enhance
educational programming and meetings. Association Management, 55(5), 26-32.
Retrieved from http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/AMMagCurrentIssueTOC.cfm
Rossett, A., Douglis, F., & Frazee, R. V. (2003). Strategies for building blended learning.
Learning Circuits. Retrieved from
https://files.pbworks.com/download/fRXtrKEU4m/ablendedmaricopa/1240589/Strategies
%20Building%20Blended%20Learning.pdf
Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative
analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1-13.
Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of E-learning in medical
education. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical
Colleges, 81(3), 207-12. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16501260
Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the
language classroom. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of
blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. York, UK: The Higher
Education Academy. Retrieved from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/literature_reviews/blended_elear
ning_full_review.pdf
Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6),
51-54. Retrieved from: http://www.bookstoread.com/etp/
Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning.
Lexington, MA: Centra Corp. Retrieved from Centra Software’s website:
http://www.centra.com
Smart, K. L., & Cappel, J. J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of online learning: A comparative
study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201–219. Retrieved from
http://www.informingscience.us/icarus/journals/jiteresearch/publications
Smith, J. M. (2001). Blended learning: An old friend gets a new name. Executive Update,
Online. Retrieved from http://www.design-insite.com/elearning4f.html
Stacey, E. & Gerbic, P. (2009). Effective blended learning practices: Evidence-based
perspectives in ICT-facilitated education. Information Science Reference. doi:
10.4018/978-1-60566-296-1
Staker, H., Chan, E., Clayton, M., Hernandez, A., Horn, M. B., & Mackey, K. (2011). The rise of
K–12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. Retrieved from the Innosight
Institute website: http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-
content/uploads/2011/01/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K – 12 Blended learning. Retrieved from
http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Classifying-K-12-
blended-learning2.pdf
Swenson, P. W. & Evans, M. (2003). Hybrid courses as learning communities. In S. Reisman, L.

G. Flores, & D. Edge (Eds.), Electronic Learning Communities: Issues and Practices (pp.
27-72). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Taradi, S. K., Taradi, M., Radic, K., & Pokrajac, N. (2005). Blending problem-based learning
with Web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology.
Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 35-39. doi:10.1152/advan.00026.2004.
Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online & traditional learning. Sterling,
VA: Kogan Page Limited.
Tuckman, B. (2002). Evaluating ADAPT: A hybrid instructional model combining web-based

and classroom components. Computers & Education, 39, 261-269. doi:10.1016/S0360-
1315(02)00045-3
Unwin, T. (2005). Towards a framework for the use of ICT in teacher training in Africa. Open
Learning, 20(2), 113-129. doi:10.1080/02680510500094124
Utts, J., Sommer, B., Acredolo, C., Maher, M. W., & Matthews, H. R. (2003). A study
comparing traditional and hybrid internet-based instruction in introductory statistics classes.
Journal of Statistics Education, 11(3). Retrieved from
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v11n3/utts.html
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/
Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. Learning Circuits. Retrieved from
http://www.astd.org/Publications/Newsletters/Learning-Circuits.aspx
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty
development community. The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 1-12.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.11.001
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Vines, R. (2006). Google scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94, 97-99.
Retrieved from: http://www.mlanet.org/publications/jmla/
Voos, R. (2003, February). Blended learning - What is it and where might it take us? Sloan-C
View, 2(1), 3-5. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/view/v2n1/coverv2n1.htm
Wagner, E. D. (2006). On designing interaction experiences for the next generation of blended
learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning:
Wang, M., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students’
learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 673-695. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00846.x
Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education.
Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning.
Wenger, M. S., & Ferguson, C. (2006). A learning ecology model for blended learning from Sun
Microsystems. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning:
West, R. E., & Rich, P. J. (2013). Rigor, impact and prestige: A proposed framework for
evaluating scholarly publications. Innovative Higher Education, 38(1).
Woods, R., Baker, J. D., & Hopper, D. (2004). Hybrid structures: Faculty use and perception of
web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. The Internet and
Higher Education, 7, 281-297. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.09.002
Wu, J.-H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T.-L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-
learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55, 155-164. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Yasmeen, S. & Roy, S. (2010). Why NIOS must succeed. Education World: The Human
Development Magazine, 92, 70-78. Retrieved from
http://www.educationworldonline.net/index.php/
doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166

Figures & Tables
Figure 1. Search screen from Publish or Perish

Figure 2. Top-cited blended learning articles listed by year of publication (x-axis) and average number of citations per year (y-axis).
The size of the bubble reflects total citations. Total citations and average citations per year are also indicated in parentheses. To give
clarity to partially overlapping circles, we factored in the month of publication when available.
Publication Info: 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(3), 381–413. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723166


Table 1
Top Ranked Articles as Measured by Total Citations, 2009-2011.
Ave.
Total cites
# cites /yr Authors Title Source
2009
1 74 24.67 Bernard, Abrami, Borokhovski, A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance Review of Educational
Wade, Tamim, Surkes, & Bethel education Research
2 51 17.00 Hoic-Bozic, Mornar & Boticki A blended learning approach to course design & implementation IEEE Transactions on
Education
3 48 16.00 Arbaugh, Godfrey, Johnson, Research in online & blended learning in the business disciplines: The Internet and Higher
Pollack, Niendorf, & Wresch Key findings & possible future directions Education
4 38 12.67 Ozkan & Koseler Multi-dimensional students' evaluation of e-learning systems in the Computers & Education
higher education context
5 33 11.00 Wang, Shen, Novak, & Pan The impact of mobile learning on students' learning behaviours & British Journal of
performance: Report from a large blended classroom Educational Technology
2010
1 22 11.00 Wu, Tennyson, & Hsia A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system Computers & Education
environment
2 19 9.50 Chen, Lambert, & Guidry Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning Computers & Education
technology on college student engagement
3 16 8.00 Bliuc, Ellis, Goodyear, & Piggot Learning through face-‐to-‐face & online discussions: Associations British Journal of
between students' conceptions, approaches & academic … Educational Technology
4 14 7.00 Clayton, Blumberg, & Auld The relationship between motivation, learning strategies & choice of British Journal of
environment whether traditional or including an online component Educational Technology
4 14 7.00 Cooner Creating opportunities for students in large cohorts to reflect in & on British Journal of
practice: Lessons learnt from a formative evaluation of students' Educational Technology
experiences of a technology-enhanced blended learning design
2011
1 9 9.00 Akyol & Garrison (2011) Understanding cognitive presence in an online & blended British Journal of
community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes & processes … Educational Technology
2 6 6.00 Ocak (2011) Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights Computers & Education
from faculty members


Figure 3. Top ten edited book chapters, listed by year of publication (x-axis) and average number of citations per year (y-axis). The
size of the bubble reflects total citations. Total citations and average citations per year are also indicated in parentheses

Figure 4. Top 10 cited books listed by year of publication (x-axis) and average number of citations per year (y-axis). The size of the
bubble reflects total citations. Total citations and average citations per year are also indicated in parentheses. To give clarity to
partially overlapping circles, we factored in the month of publication when available.

Figure 5. The 10 top-cited reports, white papers, and other non-academic sources, with total citations and average citations per year in
parentheses. The size of the bubble reflects total citations. To give clarity to the 2001 and 2002 works, whose circles were partially
overlapping, we factored in the month of publication for that year when available.

Figure 6. Authors (n=16) appearing more than once in our lists of top-cited publications (total authors n = 220). One author point
was awarded per citation to 1st authors; ½ author point was awarded per citation to non-lead authors. The darker bar indicates total
author points; the lighter bar indicates the average of total author points divided by the number of publications by that author which
made our top-cited lists.

Figure 7. Journals charted by number of articles which appear in our top-cited lists (n=60). “Others” includes an additional 22
journals publishing in the top-cited articles list; these journals had only one citation each.

Figure 8: Context by learner type.


Appendices
Appendix A
Top 50 Ranked Articles as Measured by Total Citations.
Ave.
Total cites
1 544 68.00 Garrison & Kanuka (2004) Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative The Internet and Higher
potential in higher education Education
2 346 57.67 Ruiz, Mintzer, & Leipzig (2006) The impact of e-learning in medical education Academic Medicine
3 323 35.89 Osguthorpe & Graham (2003) Blended learning environments: Definitions and Quarterly Review of
directions. Distance Education
4 294 32.67 Singh (2003) Building effective blended learning programs Educational Technology
5 244 30.50 Rovai & Jordan (2004) Blended learning and sense of community: A The International Review of
comparative analysis with traditional and fully online Research in Open and
graduate courses Distance Learning
6 234 32.71 Oliver & Trigwell (2005) Can “blended learning” be redeemed? E-learning and Digital
Media
7 174 17.40 Brown & Liedholm (2002) Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of The American Economic
microeconomics? Review
8 146 20.86 Bourne, Harris, & Mayadas Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, Journal of Engineering
(2005) anytime Education
9 137 23.17 Kim & Bonk (2006) The future of online teaching and learning in higher Educause Quarterly
education: The survey says …
9 137 19.57 Alonso, López, Manrique, & An instructional model for web-‐based e-‐learning British Journal of
Vines (2005) education with a blended learning process approach Educational Technology
9 137 13.70 Rivera, McAlister, & Rice A comparison of student outcomes & satisfaction Online Journal of Distance
(2002) between traditional & web based course offerings Learning Administration
12 131 26.2 Picciano & Seaman (2007) K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district Journal of Asynchronous
administrators Learning Networks


Ave.
Total cites
13 124 12.89 Kerres & De Witt (2003) A didactical framework for the design of blended Journal of Educational
learning arrangements Media
14 118 13.00 Oravec (2003) Blending by blogging: Weblogs in blended learning Journal of Educational
initiatives Media
15 108 18.00 Klein, Noe, & Wang (2006) Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of Personnel Psychology
delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived
barriers and enablers
16 104 26.00 So & Brush (2008) Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social Computers & Education
presence and satisfaction in a blended learning
environment: Relationships and critical factors
16 104 14.86 Concannon, Flynn, & Campbell What campus-‐based students think about the quality and British Journal of
(2005) benefits of e-‐learning Educational Technology
18 100 16.67 Ellis, Goodyear, Prosser, & How and what university students learn through online Journal of Computer
O’Hara (2006) and face-‐to-‐face discussion: Conceptions, intentions and Assisted Learning
approaches
19 99 12.38 Ausburn (2004) Course design elements most valued by adult learners in Educational Media
blended online education environments: An American International
perspective
20 94 9.40 King (2002) Identifying success in online teacher education and The Internet and Higher
professional development Education
21 93 13.29 Derntl & Motschnig-Pitrik The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended The Internet and Higher
(2005) learning Education
22 92 10.22 Martyn (2003) The hybrid online model: Good practice Educause Quarterly
23 86 17.20 Ginns & Ellis (2007) Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships The Internet and Higher
between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning Education
24 82 11.71 Taradi, Taradi, Radic, & Blending problem-based learning with Web technology Advances in Physiology
Pokrajac (2005) positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid- Education
base physiology


Ave.
Total cites
24 82 11.71 Vaughan & Garrison (2005) Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty The Internet and Higher
development community Education
26 78 11.14 Riffell & Sibley (2005) Using web-based instruction to improve large Computers & Education
undergraduate biology courses: An evaluation of a
hybrid course format
27 74 11.14 Bernard, Abrami, Borokhovski, A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments Review of Educational
Wade, Tamim, Surkes, & Bethel in distance education Research
(2009)
27 74 7.40 Tuckman (2002) Evaluating ADAPT: A hybrid instructional model Computers & Education
combining web-based and classroom components
29 73 14.60 El Mansour & Mupinga (2007) Students' positive and negative experiences in hybrid College Student Journal
and online classes
29 73 8.11 Boyle, Bradley, Chalk, Jones, & Using blended learning to improve student success rates Journal of Educational
Pickard (2003) in learning to program Media
31 72 10.29 Glogoff (2005) Instructional blogging: Promoting interactivity, student- Innovate: Journal of Online
centered learning, and peer input Education
31 72 9.00 Woods, Baker, & Hopper (2004) Hybrid structures: Faculty use & perception of web- The Internet and Higher
based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face Education
instruction
33 69 7.44 Utts, Sommer, Acredolo, Maher, A study comparing traditional and hybrid internet-based Journal of Statistics
& Matthews (2003) instruction in introductory statistics classes Education
34 68 13.60 Condie & Livingston (2007) Blending online learning with traditional approaches: British Journal of
changing practices Educational Technology
35 67 9.57 DeRouin, Fritzsche, & Salas E-learning in organizations Journal of Management
(2005)
35 67 8.38 Cox, Carr, & Hall (2004) Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in Journal of Computer
two blended courses Assisted Learning
37 66 8.25 Aspden & Helm (2004) Making the connection in a blended learning Educational Media
environment International
37 66 8.25 Kirkley & Kirkley (2004) Creating next generation blended learning environments TechTrends
using mixed reality, video games and simulations
39 65 10.50 Mortera-Gutiérrez (2006) Faculty best practices using blended learning in e- International Journal of E-
learning and face-to-face instruction Learning


Ave.
Total cites
40 64 10.67 Smart & Cappel (2006) Students' perceptions of online learning: A comparative Journal of Information
study Technology Education
40 64 8.00 Lynch & Dembo (2004) The relationship between self-regulation and online The International Review of
learning in a blended learning context Research in Open and
Distance Learning
42 62 5.56 Marsh, McFadden, & Price Blended instruction: Adapting conventional instruction Online Journal of Distance
(2003) for large classes Learning Administration
43 59 11.80 Hall & Davison (2007) Social software as support in hybrid learning Library & Information
environments: The value of the blog as a tool for Science Research
reflective learning and peer support
44 57 5.70 Leh (2002) Action research on hybrid courses and their online Educational Media
communities International
45 56 5.60 Bonk, Olson, Wisher, & Orvis Learning from focus groups: An examination of blended Journal of Distance
(2002) learning Education
46 54 10.80 Laurillard (2007) Higher Education
47 52 8.33 Motteram (2006) “Blended” education and the transformation of teachers: British Journal of
A long-term case study in postgraduate UK higher Educational Technology
education
47 52 8.33 Olapiriyakul & Scher (2006) A guide to establishing hybrid learning courses: The Internet and Higher
Employing information technology to create a new Education
learning experience, and a case study
49 51 17.00 Hoic-Bozic, Mornar, & Boticki A blended learning approach to course design and IEEE Transactions on
(2009) implementation Education
49 51 7.29 Unwin (2005) Towards a framework for the use of ICT in teacher Open Learning
training in Africa


Appendix B
Top 25 Ranked Edited Book Chapters as Measured by Total Citations.
Ave.
Total cites
# cites /yr Author Chapter title Source
1 407 67.83 Graham (2006) Blended learning systems The handbook of blended
learning
2 235 33.57 Dziuban, Moskal, & Higher education, blended learning, & the generations: Elements of quality
Hartman (2005) Knowledge is power: No more online education:
Engaging communities
3 107 17.83 Bonk, Kim, & Zeng (2006) Future directions of blended learning in higher The handbook of blended
education & workplace learning settings learning
4 70 7.00 Masie (2002) Blended learning: The magic is in the mix The ASTD e-learning
handbook
5 66 11.00 Nicol & Milligan (2006) Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices Innovative assessment in
in relation to the seven principles of good feedback higher education
practice
6 51 8.50 Dziuban, Hartman, Juge, Blended learning enters the mainstream The handbook of blended
Moskal, & Sorg (2006) learning
7 39 5.57 Graham, Allen, & Ure Benefits and challenges of blended learning Encyclopedia of
(2005) environments information science and
technology
8 34 4.86 Alvarez (2005) Blended learning solutions Encyclopedia of
educational technology
9 33 5.50 Jones (2006) E-College Wales, a case study of blended learning The handbook of blended
learning
10 29 4.83 Owston, Garrison, & Cook Blended learning at Canadian universities: Issues & The handbook of blended
(2006) practices learning


Ave.
Total cites
11 27 4.50 Oliver, Herrington, & Creating authentic learning environments through The handbook of blended
Reeves (2006) blended learning approaches learning
12 25 4.17 Wagner (2006) On designing interaction experiences for the next The handbook of blended
generation of blended learning learning
13 24 4.00 Jung & Suzuki (2006) Blended learning in Japan & its application in liberal The handbook of blended
arts education learning
14 23 2.56 Swenson & Evans (2003) Hybrid courses as learning communities Electronic learning
communities
15 20 3.33 Milne (2006) Designing blended learning space to the student Learning spaces
experience
16 19 3.17 Hofmann (2006) Why blended learning hasn't (yet) fulfilled its promises: The handbook of blended
Answers to those questions that keep you up at night learning
17 17 2.83 Masie (2006) The blended learning imperative The handbook of blended
learning
18 16 3.20 Edirisingha, Salmon, & Profcasting: A pilot study & guidelines for integrating Research on competence
Fothergill (2007) podcasts in a blended learning environment development in online
distance education & e-
learning
18 16 2.67 Huang & Zhou (2006) Designing blended learning focused on knowledge The handbook of blended
category & learning activities learning
18 16 2.67 Lewis & Orton (2006) Blending learning for business impact: IBM's case for The handbook of blended
learning success learning
21 15 3.00 Graham & Robison (2007) Realizing the transformational potential of blended Blended learning:
learning: Comparing cases of transforming blends and Research perspectives
enhancing blends in higher education
21 15 3.0 Kaleta, Sibba, & Joosten Discovering, designing, & delivering hybrid courses Blended learning:
(2007) Research perspectives
21 15 1.50 Douglis (2002) Blended learning: Choosing the right blend The encyclopedia of


Ave.
Total cites
educational technology
24 14 2.33 Wenger & Ferguson (2006) A learning ecology model for blended learning from The handbook of blended
Sun Microsystems learning
25 13 2.17 Hanson & Clem (2006) To blend or not to blend: A look at community The handbook of blended
development via blended learning strategies learning


Appendix C
Top 10 Ranked Books and Book Authors as Measured by Total Citations.
Ave.
Total cites
# cites /yr Authors Title
1 471 78.50 Bonk & Graham (2006) The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local
designs*
2 328 82.00 Garrison & Vaughan (2008) Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and
guidelines
3 213 23.67 Thorne (2003) Blended learning: How to integrate online & traditional learning
4 212 26.50 Bersin (2004) The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies,
and lessons learned
5 131 32.75 Macdonald (2008) Blended learning and online tutoring
6 119 23.80 Littlejohn & Pegler (2007) Preparing for blended e-learning
7 71 7.89 Bielawski & Metcalf (2003) Blended eLearning: Integrating knowledge, performance support,
and online learning
8 48 9.60 Sharma & Barrett (2007) Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language
classroom
8 48 4.36 Mantyla (2001) Blending e-learning
10 38 7.60 Allan (2007) Blended learning: Tools for teaching and training
10 38 5.50 Klein, Spector, Grabowski, & de la Instructor competencies: Standards for face-to-face, online, and
Teja (2004) blended settings
* Indicates an edited book.


Appendix D
Top 15 Ranked White Papers, Reports, Trade Journal Articles, etc. as Measured by Citations.
Ave.
Total cites
1 346 38.44 Allen & Seaman (2003) Sizing the opportunity: The quality & extent The Sloan Consortium
of online education in the United States, 2002
& 2003
2 250 83.33 Means, Toyama, Murphy, Evaluation of evidence-based practices in U.S. Department of
Bakia, & Jones (2009) online learning: A meta-analysis & review of Education
online learning studies
3 171 17.90 Collis & van der Wende Models of technology & change in higher Center for Higher Education
(2002) education: An international comparative Policy Studies
survey on the current & future use of ICT in
higher education
4 161 16.10 Garnham & Kaleta (2002) Introduction to hybrid courses Teaching with Technology
Today
5 156 15.60 Driscoll (2002) Blended learning: Let's get beyond the hype E-learning
6 151 15.10 Valiathan (2002) Blended learning models Learning Circuits
7 130 11.82 Singh & Reed (2001) A white paper: Achieving success with Centra software
blended learning
8 112 18.67 Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts, & The undergraduate experience of blended e- The Higher Education
Francis (2006) learning: A review of UK literature & practice Academy
9 101 11.22 Rossett, Douglis, & Frazee Strategies for building blended learning Learning Circuits
(2003)
10 77 7.70 Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta Lessons learned from the hybrid course Teaching with Technology
(2002) project Today
11 74 8.33 Voos (2003) Blended learning: What is it and where might Sloan-C View
it take us
12 70 7.10 Carman (2002) Blended learning design: Five key ingredients KnowledgeNet


Ave.
Total cites
13 57 5.18 Reay (2001) Blended learning. A fusion for the future Knowledge Management
Review
14 53 5.18 Rooney (2003) Knowledge infusion: Blending learning Association Management
opportunities to enhance educational
programming and meetings
15 47 5.88 Gonzalez (2004) The role of blended learning in the world of Benchmarks Online
technology
15 47 4.27 Smith (2001) Blended learning: An old friend gets a new The Center for Association
name Leadership

View publication stats

2013DE BLImpactArticle20120822

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2013DE BLImpactArticle20120822

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended

Article in Distance Education · November 2013

Lisa Halverson Charles R. Graham

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dissertation Research: Blended Teaching Competencies View project

Online Learning Research View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running Head: SCHOLARSHIP IN BLENDED LEARNING

This is a prepublication draft of the article to appear in:

An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning

Brigham Young University

emerging trends related to scholarship in blended learning.

alone” (Watson, 2008, p. 3).

attention. Consequently our understanding of the conversations about blended learning is

blended learning research taking place?

1. What are the 50 most frequently cited articles?

3. What are the 10 most frequently cited books?

4. Which authors are most frequently cited?

5. In which journals do the most frequently cited articles appear?

Identify database/source for publications. Our research questions asked which

academic publications. We utilized Harzing’s Publish or Perish software program (Harzing,

timeliness, and influence to field of blended learning.

Insert Figure 1 about here.

"blended learning," "blended instruction," "blended course," "blended environment," “blended

environment," "hybrid class," "hybrid program.”

discarded, as were non-English publications and conference proceedings.

sense: “Blended learning systems combine face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated

researcher was consulted.

We next sorted retrievals into categories—article, chapter, book, or “other”—and then

Most Impactful Articles

Place Figure 2 About Here

Kanuka, blended learning is transformative because it fundamentally reconceptualizes and

the 21st century" (p. 103).

medical institutions have tried to use e-learning as a stand-alone solution to updating or

seminal work within medical education on blended learning.

Framework—institutional, pedagogical, technological, interface design, evaluation,

integration of technology into traditional classrooms, increased recognition of the importance of

causal-comparative design, the authors compared three instructional formats—traditional,

Place Table 1 About Here

definitional and more research-based focus in publications on blended learning.

online learning, which we will discuss in greater depth later.

Most Impactful Book Chapters

span a wider period of time and include more recent publications.

significance as an oft-cited text in research on blended learning.

Place Figure 3 About Here

application of blended learning. Giving coverage to so many definitional concepts in blended

changed by blended learning: from “Knowledge is power”—the view of the university as a

learning and accommodate various learning style preferences.

less frequently than articles and books.

Most Impactful Books

possibility of combining the “best of both worlds.”

Hernandez, Horn, & Mackey, 2011; Staker & Horn, 2012).

Department of Education—featured most prominently in our list of top-cited non-academic

inclusion in the meta-analysis. .

Most Impactful Authors

points per publication score of 100.

Place Figure 6 About Here

Most Impactful Journals

ISI impact ratings as well.

American Journal of Distance Education, The Journal of Distance Education, Distance

for this finding will be discussed henceforth.

settings, while 12.5% focused on corporate/organizational training. Only two publications—