Advertisement

Effectiveness of Blended Learning in a Distance Education Setting

  • Patricia Castelijn
  • Boudewijn Janssen
Part of the Advances in Business Education and Training book series (ABET, volume 1)

Abstract

Different teaching formats are available to teach university level courses like classroom education, distance education or a combination of both. Previous literature has not clearly shown the added value of classroom education compared to distance education. But, based on theoretical models, an added value of additional classroom teaching is expected, although this may differ depending on cognitive dimensions examined. This paper provides data from a setting in which two groups of students take the same distance education course in financial accounting. However, only one of these two groups of students receives additional classroom education. Apart from this difference, these two groups of students are comparable with regard to (a.o.) work experience and prior education. The statistical results for this study are based on open-ended exam questions filled out by both groups of students, while distinguishing between different cognitive dimensions. Empirical results indicate that additional classroom education does not affect overall exam results, but does affect different cognitive dimensions.

Key Words

distance education blended learning effectiveness cognitive dimensions 

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th eed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Bernard, R. S., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y. Borokhovski, B., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Hang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals; Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David MacKay.Google Scholar
  4. Bollen, L., Janssen, B., & Gijselaers, W. (2002). Measuring the effect of innovations in teaching methods on the performance of accounting students. In A., Bentzen-Bilkvist W.H.Gijselaers, & R.G. Milter (Eds.), Educational innovation in economics and business: Educating knowledge workers for corporate leadership: Learning into the future, 21–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bonner, S. E. (1999). Choosing teaching methods based on learning objectives: an integrative framework. Issues in Accounting Education, 14(1), 11–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education, 8(4), 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant, S. M., & Hunton, J. E. (2000). The use of technology in the delivery of instruction: implications for accounting educators and education researchers. Issues in Accounting Education, 15(1), 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2002). The relationship between learning approaches and learning outcomes: a study of Irish accounting students, Accounting Education, 11(1), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheung, L. L. W., & Kan, A. C. N. (2002). Evaluation of factors related to student performance in a distance-learning business communication course, Journal of Education for Business, May/June, 257–263.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.Google Scholar
  11. Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson, R. A. (2002). Relationship of study approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20(1), 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowling, C., Godfrey, J. M., & Gyles, N. (2003). Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students’ learning outcomes? Accounting Education, 12(4), 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duff, A. (2004). Understanding academic performance and progression of first year accounting and business economics undergraduates: the role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education, 13(4), 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. English, L., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (2004). Encouraging a deep approach to learning through curriculum design. Accounting Education, 13(4), 461–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A new Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, M., Ramsey, A., & Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4), 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones, S. H., & Davidson, R. A. (1995) Relationship between level of formal reasoning and students’ performance in accounting examinations. Contemporary Accounting Research, 12(1), 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koh, M. Y., & Koh, H. C. (1999). The determinants of performance in an accountancy degree programme, Accounting Education, 8(1), 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lane, A., & Porch, M. (2002). The impact of background factors on performance of nonspecialist undergraduate students on accounting modules—a longitudinal study: a research note, Accounting Education, 11(1), 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Philips, F. (1998). Accounting students’ beliefs about knowledge: associating performance with underlying belief dimensions. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(1), 113–126.Google Scholar
  24. Prins, F. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2006). The impact of intellectual ability and metacognition on learning: New support for the threshold of problematicity theory, Learning and instruction, 16(4), 374–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reeve, F., & Gallacher, J. (2005). Employer-university “partnerships”: a key problem for work-based learning programmes? Journal of Education and Work, 18(2), 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watson, S. F., Apostolou, B., Hassell, J. M., & Webber, S. A. (2003). Accounting education literature review. Journal of Accounting Education, 21, 267–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Castelijn
    • 1
  • Boudewijn Janssen
  1. 1.Faculty of Management SciencesOpen University NederlandThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations