Physical presence of leadership is an elemental component of an effective learning organization. While the element of physical presence of leadership is regarded as most obvious, it frequently remains overlooked. Hall (2005) contended that leadership’s presence, physical and otherwise, yields more dividends than would seem reasonable. One of these dividends involves developing productive professional working relationships. He stated; “No matter the exact locale, and no matter the content, a present principal is one with whom all members of the school community can build a relationship. And relationships, when dealing with a profession that is (or should be) 98 percent human interactions, are of utmost importance” (p. 3).

Traditionally the physical presence of leadership is highly regarded. Reavis (1976) described the importance of the physical presences of effective supervision as a long-term, field based cyclical process called “Clinical Supervision”. Goldhammer (1969) described clinical supervision as:

"that phase of instruction which draws its data from first hand observation of actual teaching events, and involves face to face…interaction between the supervisor and the teacher in the analysis of teaching behaviors and activities for instructional improvement." (pp. 19-20)

Sergiovanni (2009) agreed, that the campus principal’s physical presence is necessary for instructional leadership to be effective, and while present, the principal should address the following:

Sergiovanni (2009), Fullan (2003), Glickman (2010), Beach and Reinhartz (2000) and others have contributed significantly to the prevalence of literature focusing on effective instructional leadership practices requiring the physical presence of leadership as an essential element of effective school supervision. However, the current general appearance of educational leadership preparation programs in higher education reveal a movement away from learning experiences requiring students’ face to face interactions, instead moving toward fully digital or online learning experiences.

Kern, (2010) reported that approximately one fourth of the 19 million students enrolled in higher education were enrolled in at least one online course during the fall of 2008. She adds that this is a 17 percent increase over the previous year’s totals. Today, more than 3,300 of the roughly 4,500 colleges and universities offer at least one online course. The Babson Survey Research Group (2009) reported that more than 1,700 schools offer fully online programs.

Schank (2001), Ascough (2002), and Rosie (2002) believe that online course delivery is pedagogically superior to traditional course delivery. They profess, when prepared correctly, online courses promote student’s critical thinking skills, and encourage collaborative learning and problem solving skills. Proponents also argue that online course delivery encourages non-discriminatory teaching and learning practices since all students must participate with equal access to fellow students and instructors. Online learning environments can allow educators and students to exchange ideas and information, work together on projects, around the clock, from anywhere in the world, using multiple communication modes. They argue that it permits a full range of interactive methodologies, and instructors have found that in adapting their courses to online models, they are paying more attention to the instructional design of their courses. As a result, the quality, quantity, and patterns of communication students practice during learning are improved.

Not all agree that fully online course delivery is the best preparation method for students in higher education. Evan and Haase (2001) found that many online learners are moderately lacking in computer proficiency and, since e-learning is centered around computer technologies, it is a barrier to those learners without good computer skills. In addition Evan and Haase (2001), O’Regan (2003), and Rovai and Jordan (2004) found that online learners face limited physical interactions among themselves.

Opponents also point to high student attrition rates as the “Achilles’ heel” of fully online course delivery. Student drop-out rates in fully online courses have been reported as high as 35% to 50% (Lynch 2001). Nitsch (2003) summarized the reasoning behind the high attrition rates for fully online learners as follows:

The online learner is isolated from much of the social activities of learning (White & Weight, 2000). The online student lacks immediate support of peers and instructors, an important element of student success as described in Tinto’s model of attrition (Tinto, 1993). In this model, several factors that impact attrition are explained with emphasis placed on the need for social integration as part of the learning process. Lonely people tend to be less involved in the learning process (Pugliese, 1994). With this lack of physical proximity, there is a decrease in the motivation to succeed in the online courses. Where many of the students seek out online learning because of its flexibility, this flexibility puts a student in the position of having to depend only on oneself to maintain the desire to complete a course. Without an adequate support system, a student could easily lose sight of the reasons for completing the program and decide to drop out.

Ward and Druade (2010) posited, “It is not very hard to find the arguments against totally online classes, however. Faculty and students alike voice opinions that they miss the face to face exchange of ideas. Online, facial expressions go unseen and messages in body language are lost. Dialogue that is spontaneous and meaningful often occurs in the presence of classmates. Faculty can actually see students’ responses to help them know whether or not an important concept is understood” (p. 1).

Thus the paradox of fully online delivery of education leadership preparation courses designed to produce leaders who excel in the physical presence of others. Thus, the niche for blended or hybrid course delivery in education leadership preparation programs is exposed.

The common definition of hybrid course delivery includes:

Today’s higher education students want it all. They desire the flexibility that online course presentation offers, yet they want exposure to experiences that will mold them into candidates for leadership roles they can assume with confidence. Many institutions of higher learning agree. Graham Spanier, President of Penn State University, believes "Hybrid instruction is the single greatest unrecognized trend in higher education today”.

Research concerning the effectiveness of hybrid course delivery compared to both face to face and online delivery is limited. However, results from a University of Central Florida study revealed initial comparative outcomes that are dramatic and consistent. Students enrolled in hybrid courses had the highest success rate. These rates were higher than face-to-face courses and higher than fully online courses (Sorg, Juge, & Bledsoe, 2003).

Sorg, Juge, & Bledsoe (2003) maintained that for some students and subject matters, the most effective mix will be as much as 90% face-to-face and only 10% Internet-based. For other circumstances, the most effective mix will be as much as 90% Internet-based and 10% face-to-face. Usually the optimum mix will be between 90-10 and 10-90. If 90-10 is to become the “gold standard,” a key role for institutions will be to assure that face-to-face students have adequate Internet support. And, the best distance learning programs will be supported by periodic regional gatherings of course participants and by get-to-know-and-trust-you retreats (p. 2).

Delaney (2008), associate dean and CIO of New York University (NYU) School of Law revealed, “Law school students enrolled in hybrid programs outperform those who study exclusively in one environment.” The Department of Education (2009) reported blended or hybrid instruction as more effective at improving student achievement across a variety of subject areas than purely online or face to face instruction.

The Teaching-Learning Center (2010) reported hybrid course delivery as providing the following benefits:

Maximizing Physical Resources

Maximizing Student Learning

Literature pertaining to effective education organizations assumes that physical presence of effective leadership is essential. As our current education leadership organizations continue to grow in a fully online course delivery format, the question of course participants experiencing activities requiring the physical presence of leaders comes into question. Do fully online programs adequately prepare education leadership students for a profession predicated predominantly on personal face to face interactions? Those who promote online learning will argue that the fully online experience not only is adequate, but exceeds the face to face classroom experiences traditionally offered. Opponents of fully online instruction contend that preparation of future effective school supervisors requires the elemental ingredient of personal interaction with peers. The growth of fully online education leadership programs is evident. The implementation of blended or hybrid course delivery is viewed by many as an effective compromise offering both the convenience of online course delivery and personal interactive learning experiences offered during face to face classroom meetings.