Abstract
The purpose of this study was to conduct a three-way comparison of face-to-face, online, and blended teaching modalities in an undergraduate Child Development course to determine if there were differences in student academic outcomes and course satisfaction across modalities. Student academic outcomes were measured by three examinations, one research paper assignment, and the overall course total grade. Course satisfaction was measured by administering the Student Opinion Questionnaire (SOQ) across the three teaching modalities and the Constructivist On-Line Learning Environment Survey (COLLES) to online and blended modalities. Results indicated that students performed equally well on all three examinations, research paper, and the overall course total grade across three teaching modalities, allaying traditional reservations about online and blended teaching efficacy. The SOQ and COLLES analysis found students from the three modalities were equally satisfied with their learning experiences. A Two-Factor Model identifying Face-to-Face Interaction and Learn on Demand (Flexibility) as factors determining student academic outcomes was proposed. Implications, limitations, and future research direction were discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park: Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf.
DeLacey, B. J., & Leonard, D. A. (2002). Case steudy on technology and distance in education at the Harvard Business School. Educational Technology and Society, 5(2), 13–28.
Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers and Education, 54(2), 350–359.
Fallah, M., & UBell, R. (2000). Blind scores in a graduate test: Conventional compared with web-based outcomes. Asynchronous Learning Networks Magazine, 4. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/magazine/v4n2/fallah.asp.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2004). Critical factors in student satisfaction andsuccess: Facilitating student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream, Vol. 5 in the Sloan-C Series (pp. 47–58). Needham: The Sloan.
Hastie, M., Hung, I. C., Chen, N. S., & Kinsuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903525812.
Hege, B. A. (2011). The online theology classroom: Strategies for engaging a community of distance learners in a hybrid model of online education. Teaching Theology and Religion, 14(1), 13–20.
Ho, V., Nakamori, Y., Ho, T., & Lim, C. (2016). Blended learning model on hands-on approach for in-service secondary school teachers: Combination of E-learning and face-to-face discussion. Education and Information Technologies, 21(1), 185–208.
Jesus, A., Gomes, M. J., & Cruz, A. (2017). Blended versus face-to-face: Comparing student performance in a therapeutics class. The Institution of Engineering and Technology, 11(3), 135–140.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher (Education ed.). Austin: The New Media Consortium.
Kelly, M., Lyng, C., McGrath, M., & Cannon, G. (2009). A multi-method study to determine the effectiveness of, and student attitudes. Nurse Education Today, 29(3), 292–300.
Larson, D. K., & Sung, C. H. (2009). Comparing student performance: Online versus blended versus face-to-face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31–42.
Mascuilli, A. (2000). Effectiveness of teaching mathematics online. Asynchronous Learning Networks Magazine, 4. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/magazine/v4n2/mascuilli.asp
McCutcheon, K., Lohan, M., Traynor, M., & Martin, D. (2015). A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12509.
Newlin, M. H., Lavooy, M. J., & Wang, A. J. (2005). An experimental comparison of conventional and web-based instructional formats. North American Journal of Psychology, 7(2), 327–336.
Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309–319.
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). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v5.2/rovai-jordan.html
Shorey, S., Siew, A. L., & Ang, E. (2018). Experiences of nursing undergraduates on a redesigned blended communication module: A descriptive qualitative study. Nurse Education Today, 61, 77–82.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Smith, F. (2016) EdTech, https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2016/02/report-one-four-students-enrolled-online-courses
Straumsheim, C. (2014). A flexible future. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/12/02/some-research-universities-flexibility-and-modularity-influence-long-term-plans.
The US Department of Education. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-based practice in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.
Turnitin (2012). The plagiarism spectrum: Tagging 10 types of unoriginal work (Inforgraphic). Retrieved from http://turnitin.com/assets/en_us/media/plagiarism_spectrum.php.
Ubell, R. (2017). Why faculty still don’t want to teach online. Online Research Consortium Blog. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/faculty-still-dont-want-teach-online/.
Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Lombaerts, K., Philipsen, B., & Tondeur, J. (2018). Students’ motivation and subjective task value of participating in online and blended learning environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 33–40.
Vaughan, N., Reali, A., Stenbom, S., Van Vuuren, M. J., & MacDonald, D. (2017). Blended learning from design to evaluation: International case studies of evidence-based practice. Online Learning, 21(3), 103–114.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MIT Press: (original work published in 1934).
Wandera, S. (2017). Continuing the conversation about face-to-face, online, and blended learning: A meta-analysis of empirical literature (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10637800).
Woltering, V., Herrler, A., Spitzer, K., & Spreckelsen, 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 Sciences Education, 14, 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9154-6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yen, SC., Lo, Y., Lee, A. et al. Learning online, offline, and in-between: comparing student academic outcomes and course satisfaction in face-to-face, online, and blended teaching modalities. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2141–2153 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9707-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9707-5