It is generally held that blended learning is gaining acceptance and being adopted at college campuses throughout the U.S. Accompanying this trend has been an expansion of the research efforts in this area. These efforts have been guided mainly by the five pillars of the Sloan Consortium Quality Framework (Sloan-C) and two large questions. One question is, "Is blended learning better than other learning environments?" In this study, this question was examined from the perspective of the Sloan-C's student satisfaction pillar. The research question was stated as follows: "Is the level of student course satisfaction generated by blended learning higher than that which is generated by traditional face-to-face classroom learning?" The results of this study revealed "no differences" between blended and traditional learning on the student course satisfaction variable. In this regard, it is important to note that this finding of "no differences" is consistent with the existing research findings on student learning effectiveness as well. Given this combined evidential pattern the following question is relevant and has implications for future research efforts in this area: "Within the context of cost/benefit analysis, why should an institution invest the additional resources needed to effectively implement a blended format when, in accordance with the existing research evidence, there is little or no net benefit in terms of its impact on students, i.e., either in terms of student satisfaction or student learning?".
Blended Learning, Hybrid Learning, Distance Learning, Online Learning
This study examined student course evaluations from an Introduction to Management course taught at Howard University in the Fall of 2007. No difference between student satisfaction between blended and traditional F2F courses, the majority of students rated both courses as “satisfactory.” The authors suggest that even though the results do not indicate that students are more satisfied with blended than F2F courses, their findings support the viewpoint that blended courses are “at least as effective as traditional learning” (p. 17).
Nowell, G. (2011). Student course evaluations in traditional and blended courses: A case study. American Journal of Business Education, 4(1), 13.
|Links to Article||https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50&q=Student+course+evaluations+in+traditional+and+blended+courses%3A+A+case+study&btnG=|
|Mode||Blended or Hybrid|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|In Publication||American Journal of Business Education|
|Type of Research||Mixed methods|
|Research Design||Text analysis|
|Intervention/Areas of Study||Assessment, Course and program evaluation, Course design, Course organization|
|Level of Analysis||Course-level|
|Specific Populations Examined||Undergraduates|
|Specific Institutional Characteristics of Interest||4-year Institution, Bachelors-granting|
|Specific Course or Program Characteristics||Social sciences|
|Outcome Variables of Interest||Instructional effectiveness, Program effectiveness, Satisfaction|
|Student Sample Size||100-199|