Vol. 31 No. 1 (2016)
Research Articles

Opting in or Opting out: The Role of Hybrid Learning Course Design on Student Persistence Decisions in an Indigenous Pre-Nursing Transitions Program

Kathy Snow
Cape Breton University
Published July 22, 2016
  • Access program,
  • Indigenous pedagogy,
  • persistence,
  • adult learners,
  • hybrid learning
How to Cite
Snow, K. (2016). Opting in or Opting out: The Role of Hybrid Learning Course Design on Student Persistence Decisions in an Indigenous Pre-Nursing Transitions Program. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education / Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 31(1). Retrieved from https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/948


Transitions programs to support non-traditional students have a long history in Canada.  Despite investment in these programs over more than thirty years, there still exists a considerable gap between Indigenous students’ graduation rates and those of their non-Indigenous counterparts, with significant numbers of students dropping out of university programs within the first year. At the same time hybrid learning has been posed as an innovation that stands to disrupt current educational paradigms. The goal of this small scale exploratory case study was to determine what attributes of the design and structure of a hybrid learning environment encouraged positive persistence decisions for Indigenous students. The results of this case study describe the complexity of decisions made by Indigenous students when choosing to participate in a learning event. Further, the results highlighted the importance of flipped learning design and support that takes into account Indigenous pedagogy.

Les programmes de transitions pour soutenir les étudiants non traditionnels ont une longue histoire au Canada. Malgré l'investissement dans ces programmes depuis plus de trente ans, il existe encore un écart considérable entre les taux d’obtention du diplôme des étudiants autochtones et ceux de leurs homologues non autochtones, avec un nombre important d'étudiants qui abandonnent des programmes universitaires au cours de la première année. Parallèlement, l'apprentissage hybride a été représenté comme une innovation qui se tient à perturber les paradigmes éducatifs actuels. Le but de cette étude de cas exploratoire à petite échelle était de déterminer quels attributs de la conception et de la structure d'un environnement d'apprentissage hybride ont encouragé les décisions de persistance positive pour les étudiants autochtones. Les résultats de cette étude de cas décrivent la complexité des décisions prises par les étudiants autochtones lorsqu’ils choisissent de participer à un événement d'apprentissage. En outre, les résultats ont mis en évidence l'importance de la conception de l'apprentissage renversé et du soutien qui tient compte de la pédagogie autochtone.


  1. Allan, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
  2. Association of Canadian Community Colleges. (2010). Colleges serving Aboriginal learners and communities: 2010 environmental scan. Ottawa, ON: Association of Canadian Community Colleges.
  3. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
  4. Ayala, J. S. (2009). Blended learning as a new approach to social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 277-88.
  5. Barnhardt, C. (1994). Life on the other side: Native student survival in a university world. Peabody Journal of Education, 69, 115-139.
  6. Battiste, M. (2005). State of Aboriginal learning background paper for the National Dialogue on Aboriginal Learning. Saskatoon, SK: Canadian Council on Learning.
  7. Bell, D. (2004). Sharing our success: Ten case studies in Aboriginal learning. Kelowna, BC: Society of the Advancement of Excellence in Education.
  8. Berge, Z. L., & Huang, Y. (2004). A model for dustainable dtudent tetention: A holistic perspective on the student dropout problem with special attention to e-learning. DEOSNEWS, 5. Retrieved from http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews13_5.pdf
  9. Bennett, S., & Marsh, D. (2003). Widening participation and e-learning: Meeting the challenge within a foundation degree. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 5(3), 7-19.
  10. Bogost, I. (2013). The condensed classroom. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/08/the-condensed-classroom/279013
  11. Braxton, J. M. (2008). Towards a scholarship of practice centered on college student retention. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 101-112.
  12. Coole, H., & Watts, M. (2009). Communal e-learning styles in the online classroom. Research in Education, 82, 13-27.
  13. Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y., & Smith, L. (2008). Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies. London: Sage.
  14. Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers & Education, 33(3), 381-413.
  15. Flipped Learning Network. (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved from: http://flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/.../46/FLIP_handout_FNL_Web.pdf
  16. Friesen, J. W., & Friesen, V. L. (2005). First Nations in the twenty-first century. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
  17. Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  18. Guillory, M., & Wolverton, M. (2008). It’s about family: Native American student persistence in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(1), 58-87.
  19. Haggan, N., Brignall, C., Peacock, B., & Daniel, R. (2002). Education for Aboriginal fisheries science and ecosystem management. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 10(6). Vancouver, BC: Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia.
  20. Harris, P., Connolly, J., & Feeney, J. (2009). Blended learning: Overview and recommendations for successful implementation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(3), 155-163.
  21. Heaton-Shrestha, C., May, S., & Burke, L. (2009). Student retention in higher education: What role for virtual learning environments? Journal of Further & Higher Education, 33(1), 83-92.
  22. Holley, D., & Dobson, C. (2008). Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning environment: The use of contemporary learning spaces. Learning, Media, & Technology, 33(2), 139-50.
  23. Hughes, G. (2007). Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 103-110.
  24. Johnson, L., Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.
  25. Johnson, N. F., MacDonald, D., & Brabazon, T. (2008). Rage against the machine? Symbolic violence in e-learning supported by tertiary education. E-learning, 5(3), 275-283.
  26. Kanu, Y. (2011). Integrating Aboriginal perspectives into the school curriculum. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  27. Karp, M., Hughes, K., & O’Gara, L. (2008). An exploration of Tinto’s integration framework for community college students. Community College Research Center Working Paper No. 12. New York: Columbia University.
  28. Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
  29. Larimore, J. A., & McClellan, G. S. (2005). Native American student retention in U.S. postsecondary education. New Directions for Student Services, 109, 17-32.
  30. Lim, D. H., & Yoon, S. W. (2008). Team learning and collaboration between online and blended learner groups. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 59-72.
  31. McAuley, A., & Walton, F. (2011). Decolonizing cyberspace: Online support for the Nunavut MED. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(4). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/848
  32. 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. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
  33. Motteram, G., & Sharma, P. (2009). Blended learning in a web 2.0 world. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 7(2), 83-96.
  34. Nimmer, M. (2009). The doctoral cohort model: Increasing opportunities for success. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1373-1337.
  35. Orhan, R. (2008). Redesigning a course for blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 54-66.
  36. Reyhner, J., & Dodd, J. (1995, January). Factors Affecting the Retention of American Indian and Alaska Native Students in Higher Education. A paper presented at the 1st Annual Expanding Minority Opportunities National Conference, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
  37. Rose, R., & Ray, J. (2011). Encapsulated presentation: A new paradigm of blended learning. The Educational Forum, 75(3), 228-243.
  38. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10515/sy5pg1j19
  39. Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 1-16.
  40. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 3-6.
  41. Schreurs, B., & De Laat, M. (2012, April). Work-based networked learning: A bottom up approach to stimulate the professional development of teachers. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Conference on Networked Learning. Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  42. Simms, J. V. R. (2005). E-learning and the digital divide: Perpetuating cultural and socioeconomic elitism in higher education. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 22(1), 23.
  43. Smith, C., & Gottheil, S. (2011). Increasing accessibility: Lessons learned in retaining special population students in Canada. College & University, 86(4), 47-52.
  44. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
  45. Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention, 8(1), 1-120.
  46. Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  47. Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review, 38(5), 28-38.
  48. van Doorn, J. R., & van Doorn, J. D. (2014). The quest for knowledge transfer efficacy: Blended teaching, online and in-class, with consideration of learning typologies for non-traditional and traditional dtudents. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1-15.
  49. Woltering, V., Herrier, A., Spitzer, K., & Spreckelson, C. (2009). Blended learning positively affects students’ satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: Results of a mixed-method evaluation. Advances in Health Science Education Theory and Practice, 14(5), 725-38.