How to improve students’ experience in blending learning? Evidence from the perceptions of students in a Postgraduate Master’s Degree

Beatriz Garcia-Ortega, Javier Galan-Cubillo

Abstract

This paper examines the perceptions of a group of students of a Postgraduate Master’s Degree in Cosmetics Industry at the Universitat de València, delivered with a blended learning modality, in relation to their experience in face-to-face learning and differentiating between those with or without a previous background in a remote online learning environment, with the added purpose of identifying strategies to enhance that experience, while offering further evidence for scholars, educators and institutions in this field. To this end, a survey with open questions devised ad hoc leaning on our literature review was submitted to a group of 114 students of the Master’s Degree in the period 2017-2020. Students were enquired about the pros and cons of their blended learning experience in relation to the traditional face-to-face learning, and which modality they would choose next time if both were offered, only considering the achievement, experience and satisfaction, regardless of the price. 77 students of our initial sample participated in the questionnaire, 38 of them without previous experience in blended or distance learning. The results show a certain predilection for face-to-face learning, especially in the group of newbies in blended or distance learning. They highlight how they miss a closer interaction with their peers and professors and the difficulties to assimilate certain content, while appraising the flexibility, autonomy, and the self-pace of the blended learning modality. Correspondingly, students with experience in remote online education settings generally show a better predisposal and find fewer disadvantages in blended learning. This suggests that the factor of experience and adaptation to new tools and methods improves student perception and confidence and shapes their preferences, with a foreseeable growing acceptance of blended learning in the future. Finally, the outcome allows us to define a series of strategies to improve the achievement, experience, and satisfaction of students in this learning context.


Keywords

Students’ perceptions; Blended learning; Face-to-face learning; Remote online learning; Postgraduate Master’s Degree

Subject classification

SDG04 Quality Education

Full Text:

PDF ES

References

Al-Khanjari, Z. A. S. (2018). Applying online learning in software engineering education. In Computer Systems and Software Engineering: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 217-231). IGI Global.

Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a web‐based conferencing system: the quality of computer‐mediated interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31-43.

Arroyo-Barrigüete, J. L., López-Sánchez, J. I., Minguela-Rata, B., & Rodriguez-Duarte, A. (2019). Use patterns of educational videos: a quantitative study among university students. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management, 10(2), 1-19.

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2012). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. John Wiley & Sons.

Clark, T., & Barbour, M. K. (2015). Online, Blended, and Distance Education: Building Successful School Programs.

Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22.

Garcia-Ortega, B., & Galan-Cubillo, J., (2021). Combining teamwork, coaching and mentoring as an innovative mix for self-aware and motivational learning. Imlementation case in teamwork sessions in the context of practices in a bachelor´s degree. 15th Annual International Technology, Educationa and Development Conference. Valencia. Spain.

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.

Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2009). Evaluating the quality of e‐learning at the degree level in the student experience of blended learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 652-663.

Gómez, W. A. R. (2014). Preguntas abiertas en encuestas ¿cómo realizar su análisis?. Comunicaciones en estadística, 7(2).

Grasso, L. (2006). Encuestas. Elementos para su diseño y análisis. Editorial Brujas.

Gros, B., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). Future trends in the design strategies and technological affordances of e-learning. Springer.

Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145-178.

Hong, J. C., Tai, K. H., Hwang, M. Y., Kuo, Y. C., & Chen, J. S. (2017). Internet cognitive failure relevant to users' satisfaction with content and interface design to reflect continuance intention to use a government e-learning system. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 353-362.

López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & education, 56(3), 818-826.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.

McGEE, E., & Poojary, P. (2020). Exploring Blended Learning Relationships in Higher Education Using a Systems-based Framework. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 1-13.

Kemp, N. (2020). University students’ perceived effort and learning in face-to-face and online classes. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 69-77.

Krause, K. (2007) “Griffith University blended learning strategy,” Document number2008/0016252, 2007.

Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time‐based blended learning model. On the Horizon.

Poon, J. (2013). Blended learning: An institutional approach for enhancing students' learning experiences. Journal of online learning and teaching, 9(2), 271-288.

Rafiola, R., Setyosari, P., Radjah, C., & Ramli, M. (2020). The Effect of Learning Motivation, Self-Efficacy, and Blended Learning on Students’ Achievement in The Industrial Revolution 4.0. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(8), 71-82.

Rovai, A. P., & Downey, J. R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 141-147.

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 Distributed Learning, 5(2), 1-13.

Sayed, M. (2013). Blended learning environments: The effectiveness in developing concepts and thinking skills. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(25), 12-17.

Stein, J., & Graham, C. R. (2020). Essentials for blended learning: A standards-based guide. Routledge.

Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. Y. (2016). Digital Literacy: A Prerequisite for Effective Learning in a Blended Learning Environment?. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 14(1), 54-65.

Tseng, H., & Walsh, E. J. (2016). Blended vs. traditional course delivery: Comparing students’ motivation, learning outcomes, and preferences. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 1-21.

Volery, Thierry, and Deborah Lord. "Critical success factors in online education." International journal of educational management (2000).

Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and higher education, 10(1), 15-25.

Zhu, Y., Au, W., & Yates, G. (2016). University students’ self-control and self-regulated learning in a blended course. Internet and Higher Education, 30, 54–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.04.001.

Abstract Views

64
Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Universitat Politècnica de València

e-ISSN: 1989-9068   https://doi.org/10.4995/wpom