Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 2141–2153 | Cite as

Learning online, offline, and in-between: comparing student academic outcomes and course satisfaction in face-to-face, online, and blended teaching modalities

  • Shu-Chen Yen
  • Yafen Lo
  • Angela Lee
  • JudelMay Enriquez
Article
  • 353 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Face-to-face Online Blended Student academic outcomes Learning mode comparison 

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers and Education, 54(2), 350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher (Education ed.). Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Mascuilli, A. (2000). Effectiveness of teaching mathematics online. Asynchronous Learning Networks Magazine, 4. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/magazine/v4n2/mascuilli.asp
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. Turnitin (2012). The plagiarism spectrum: Tagging 10 types of unoriginal work (Inforgraphic). Retrieved from http://turnitin.com/assets/en_us/media/plagiarism_spectrum.php.
  23. 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/.
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MIT Press: (original work published in 1934).Google Scholar
  27. 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).Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Child and Adolescent StudiesCalifornia State University, FullertonFullertonUSA
  2. 2.California State University, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations