You are here:

Hybrid Learning in Teacher Education: Using Ethnography as a Way of Understanding Student Experience

, Illinois State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Charleston, SC, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-67-9 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Research focused on technology use in schools often assumes technology is a “neutral tool” that is measured by student performance. This “neutral tool” assumption has contributed to a lack of in-depth qualitative research focused on the student experience in the classroom. Curriculum studies scholars have discussed the philosophical ways in which technology has become a part of the lives of students and teachers, but these discussions have often missed a link to the actual classroom experiences of students and teachers. In this study, the student and instructor experiences in a hybrid learning classroom are explored using ethnography as a way to illustrate how students negotiate their own language, culture, and the instructor’s authority in a pre-service teacher education course focused on multiculturalism. Research was conducted using classroom observations for one semester, online discussion transcripts, and interviews with students and the instructor


Brown, J. (2009). Hybrid Learning in Teacher Education: Using Ethnography as a Way of Understanding Student Experience. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 825-830). Charleston, SC, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Agar, M. (1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
  2. Anderson, G. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 249-270.
  3. Appelbaum, P. (2006). Cyborgs questioning technology questioning curriculum. Journal of the American Association for Advancement of Curriculum Studies, 2. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from
  4. Apple, M.W., & Jungck, S. (1998). "You don't have to be a teacher to teach this unit": Teaching, technology and control in the classroom. In M.W. Apple, & H. Bromley (Eds.), Education/Technology/Power (pp. 133154).
  5. Caruthers, L., & Smith, D. (2006). Re-living dangerous memories: On-line journaling to interrogate spaces of "otherness" in a multicultural course. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 22(2), 123-137.
  6. Chenoweth, N.A., Usida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid French and Spanish courses: An overview of language online. Calico Journal, 24(1), 115-145.
  7. Ferneding, K.A. (2002). Stepping through the looking glass: Education within the space between modernity and postmodernity—the lifeworld, the body, and technology. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 18(3), 53-64.
  8. Ferneding, K.A. (2003). Questioning technology: Electronic technologies and educational reform. New York: Peter Lang.
  9. Ferneding, K.A. (2004). The discourse of inevitability and the forging of an emergent social vision: Technology diffusion and the dialectic of educational reform discourse. In W.M. Reynolds, & J.A. Webber (Eds.), Expanding curriculum theory: Dis/positions and lines of flight (pp. 47-63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
  10. Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.
  11. Geertz, C. (2003). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In Y.S. Lincoln& N.K. Denzin (Eds.), Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  12. Graff, M. (2003). Individual differences in sense of classroom community in a blended learning environment. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 204-210.
  13. Kincheloe, J., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138-157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  14. Koohang, A., & Durante, A. (2003). Learners' perceptions toward the web-based distance learning activities/assignments portion of an undergraduate hybrid instructional model. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 105-113.
  15. Mishra, P., & Hershey, K.A. (2004). Etiquette and the design of educational technology. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 45-49.
  16. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  17. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  18. Peck, C., Cuban, L., & Kirkpatrick, H. (2002). High-tech’s high hopes meet student realities. The Education Digest, 67(8), 47-54.
  19. Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers& Education, 42, 243-265.
  20. Peters, O. (1998). Learning and teaching in distance education: Analysis and interpretations from an international perspective. London: Kogan Page. Rovai, A. (2002a). Building a sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-16.
  21. Rovai, A., & Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparitive analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 2-13.
  22. San Diego State University Department of Educational Technology. (2007). Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Encyclopedia of Educational Technology:
  23. Scida, E.E., & Saury, R.E. (2006). Hybrid courses and their impact on student and classroom performance: A case study at the University of Virginia. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 517-531.
  24. Sun, J.R. (2004, March). Turning a regular (face to face) course into a more engaging blended (hybrid) course. Paper presented at the Ohio Commons for Digital Education Conference, Columbus, OH. Retrieved Oct 29, 2007, from Pdf
  25. Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  26. Trend, D. (2001). Welcome to cyberschool. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  27. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales from the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  28. Weinberg, D. (2002). Qualitative research methods. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  29. Winner, L. (2000). Do artifacts have politics? In Technology, Organizations, and Innovation: Critical Perspective on Business and Management (pp. 487-530). London: Routledge.
  30. Wolcott, H. (1999). Ethnography: a way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
  31. Wolcott, H. (2002). Ethnography? Or educational travel writing. In E. Trueba (Ed.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education (pp. 27-48). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact