Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transparency in previous literature reviews about blended learning in higher education

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Literature reviews as standalone papers serve various purposes; these include the development of new theories, the shaping of future research, the production or knowledge dissemination, and support of evidence-based practices. Review papers, as a foundational block of the research process, may promote further research with higher level of quality. However, in some cases, this methodological approach raises questions about their scientific rigor, trustworthiness, systematicity, and transparency. The main goal of this study is to assess transparency levels in previous review papers pertaining to blended learning in higher education. To complete this goal, this study collects and analyzes information about the report of methodological decisions and research activities in 40 review papers. As a result, in this descriptive review paper, we identify some patterns about the type of reviews and their transparency levels. Findings also demonstrate that most efforts (80%) remain focused on describing a phenomenon in the formats of narrative reviews (65%) and descriptive reviews (15%). These types of papers show low levels of transparency in their reporting process. Nevertheless, trends indicate in the last 5 years an increase in other types of published review papers such as critical, meta-analysis, and qualitative systematic reviews. This represents an important shift in the research domain. Finally, we argue that, regardless of its type, each review paper should have a minimum level of transparency in order to ensure trustworthiness in the research process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Abu Hassana, R., & Woodcock, A. (2013). Blended learning: Issues and concerns. Discovery, 3, 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal design for learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer- reviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 16, 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alebaikan, R., & Troudi, S. (2010). Blended learning in Saudi universities: Challenges and perspectives. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18, 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkraiji, A., & Eidaroos, A. (2016). Trends and issues in educational technology research in Saudi higher education: A meta-analysis review. Journal of Education and Practice, 7, 62–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J. B. (2014). What might online delivery teach us about blended management education? Prior perspectives and future directions. Journal of Management Education, 38, 784–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Internet & Higher Education, 12, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J. B., Desai, A., Rau, B., & Sridhar, B. S. (2010). A review of research on online and blended learning in the management disciplines: 1994–2009. Organization Management Journal, 7, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandara, W., Furtmueller, E., Gorbacheva, E., Miskon, S., & Beekhuyzen, J. (2015). Achieving rigor in literature reviews: Insights from qualitative data analysis and tool-support. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 154–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A. (2013). Face-to-face versus online course evaluations: A “Consumer’s guide” to seven strategies. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9, 140–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R., Tamim, R., & Abrami, P. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 87–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliuc, A.-M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews in IS. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R., Bicen, H., Holotescu, C. (2017). Current trends in blending university courses with MOOCs. In the 13th international scientific conference eLearning and software for education Bucharest, April 27–28. https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026x-17-000.

  • Boone, J. (2015). Leading learning organizations through transformational change. International Journal of Educational Management, 29, 275–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. G. M. U. E. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. Internet & Higher Education, 31, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caravias, V. (2015). Literature review in conceptions and approaches to teaching using blended learning. International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy (IJIDE), 6, 46–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Educ Inf Technol 24, 2523–2546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3.

  • Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1, 104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, R., & Jenkins, L. (2015). Investigating the importance of team teaching and blended learning in tertiary music education. Australian Journal of Music Education, 23, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 17, 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhaney, D. C. (2012). Blended learning and teacher preparation programs. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39, 197–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dzakiria, H., Don, W. M. S., & Abdul Rahman, H. D. (2012). Blended learning (BL) as pedagogical alternative to teach business communication course: Case study of UUM executive diploma program. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13, 297–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, J., Costa, R., & Peres, P. (2016). Putting order into our universe: The concept of blended learning – a methodology within the concept-based terminology framework. Education Sciences, 6, 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, A. 2019. Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57, 2333–2351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. Internet & Higher Education, 20, 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P., Connolly, J., & Feeney, L. (2009). Blended learning: Overview and recommendations for successful implementation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41, 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel, M. J. (2015). Effectiveness of integrating MOOCs in traditional classrooms for undergraduate students. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16, 102–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keengwe, J., & Jung-Jin, K. (2012). Blended learning in teacher preparation programs: A literature review. International Journal of Information & Communication Technology Education, 8, 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamport, M. A., & Hill, R. J. (2012). Impact of hybrid instruction on student achievement in post-secondary institutions: A synthetic review of the literature. Journal of Instructional Research, 1, 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science, 9, 181–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loncar, M., Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G. Z. (2014). Towards the refinement of forum and asynchronous online discussion in educational contexts worldwide: Trends and investigative approaches within a dominant research paradigm. Computers & Education, 73, 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma’arop, A. H., & Embi, M. A. (2016). Implementation of blended learning in higher learning institutions: A review of the literature. International Education Studies, 9, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margulieux, L. E., Mccracken, W. M., & Catrambone, R. (2016). A taxonomy to define courses that mix face-to-face and online learning. Educational Research Review, 19, 104–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-Learning and Digital Media, 2, 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52, 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paré, G., Tate, M., Johnstone, D., & Kitsiou, S. (2016). Contextualizing the twin concepts of systematicity and transparency in information systems literature reviews. European Journal of Information Systems, 25, 493–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavla, S., Hana, V., Jan, V., Bures, Z., & Marsalek, P. (2015). Blended learning: Promising strategic alternative in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 1245–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(Suppl 1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picciano, A. 2009. Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, v. 13 n 1, p. 7–18.

  • Robles Haros, B. I., Fernández Nistal, M. T., & Vales García, J. J. (2016). Creencias de profesores universitarios sobre la enseñanza-aprendizaje de cursos B-Learning. Revisión bibliográfica, EDMETIC, 5(2), 94–116. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v5i2.5778.

  • Rowe, F. (2014). What literature review is not: Diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23, 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, M., Frantz, J., & Bozalek, V. (2012). The role of blended learning in the clinical education of healthcare students: A systematic review. Medical Teacher, 34, e216–e221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Towne, L., & Council, N. R. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shivetts, C. (2011). E-learning and blended learning: The importance of the learner: A research literature review. International Journal on E-Learning, 10, 331–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. U., Hayes, S., & Shea, P. (2017). A critical review of the use of Wenger’s Community of Practice (CoP) theoretical framework in online and blended learning research, 2000–2014. Online Learning, 21, 209–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sophonhiranrak, S., Suwannatthachote, P., & Ngudgratoke, S. (2015). Factors affecting creative problem solving in the blended learning environment: A review of the literature. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2130–2136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suprabha, K., & Subramonian, G. (2015). Blended learning approach for enhancing students learning experiences in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Technology, 11, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015). A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 112–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2018) Transparency in literature reviews: an assessment of reporting practices across review types and genres in top IS journals. European Journal of Information Systems, 27:(5), 503–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2017.1398880.

  • Tong, A., Flemming, K., Mcinnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 181–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tricco, A. C., Tetzlaff, J., & Moher, D. (2011). The art and science of knowledge synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tshabalala, M., Ndeya-Ndereya, C., & Van Der Merwe, T. (2014). Implementing blended learning at a developing university: Obstacles in the way. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12, 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasileiou, I. (2009). Blended learning: The transformation of higher education curriculum. Open Education: The Journal for Open & Distance Education & Educational Technology, 5, 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • VO, H. M., ZHU, C., & DIEP, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R. & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. 17th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS, 2009.

  • Wagner, G., Prester, J., Roche, M., Benlian, A. & Schryen, G (2016). Factors affecting the scientific impact of literature reviews: A scientometric study. 2016 International conference on information systems, ICIS 2016.

  • Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26, xiii–xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weightman, A. L., Farnell, D. J. J., Morris, D., Strange, H., & Hallam, G. (2017). A systematic review of information literacy programs in higher education: Effects of faceto- face, online, and blended formats on student skills and views. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 12, 20–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittemore, R., Chao, A., Jang, M., Minges, K. E., & Park, C. (2014). Methods for knowledge synthesis: An overview. Heart & Lung, 43, 453–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author appreciates the helpful comments and suggestions of Majlinda Zhegu (UQAM), Xavier Olleros (UQAM), Guy Paré (HEC – Montréal), Oleg Litvinski, and Jose Montes.

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available by email to the corresponding author (rcastro@icesi.edu.co) on a reasonable request.

• Castro-Gil, Robin; Correa, Diego (2020), “Transparency in Previous Literature Reviews about Blended Learning in Higher Education”, Mendeley Data, v1. https://doi.org/10.17632/f4c36hfb8g.1.

Funding

This research was partially funded by the Universidad Icesi (Colombia) and an internal grant received from the University of Québec at Montréal - UQAM (Canada).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Icesi, Cali, Colombia

    Robin Castro-Gil

  2. Department of Computer Sciences, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Canada

    Diego Correa

Authors
  1. Robin Castro-Gil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diego Correa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The author is the only contributor to the entire research and writing of this study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robin Castro-Gil.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 10 Anonymized profile of included papers ordered by main themes
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 11 Transparency assessment results sheet ordered by type of review
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castro-Gil, R., Correa, D. Transparency in previous literature reviews about blended learning in higher education. Educ Inf Technol 26, 3399–3426 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10406-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10406-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation