Preferences and satisfaction with hybrid instruction
This document is part of a larger collection of documents on hybrid instruction from the Center of Teaching, Learning and Mentoring's Instructional Resources KnowledgeBase. See more hybrid instruction documents.
The preferences and satisfaction with hybrid instruction from students
Taken from Patsy Moskal and Thomas B. Cavanagh. “Blended Learning Evaluation Beyond the University.” Blended Learning Research Perspectives: Volume 2. Ed. Anthony Picciano, Charles Dzuiban, and Charles Graham. New York, NY, Routledge, 2014.
Blended learning courses, where a portion of the traditional face-to-face instruction is replaced by web-based online learning, have proven to be among the most popular choices for students at institutions where they are offered. At first glance, the popularity seems intuitive because blended courses allow students and faculty to take advantage of much of the flexibility and convenience of an online course while retaining the benefits of the face-to-face classroom experience (Moskal and Cavanagh, 2014).
The U.S. Department of Education, in a meta-analysis of online research, reported that students in online courses mostly performed better, on average, than those in face-to-face courses, while students in blended courses performed the best (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakie, and Jones, 2010). Not only do students perform better in blended courses, but the electronic resources inherent in the modality offer other advantages, as well. Student analytics can be used to study and better understand student learning and can identify students who need early intervention (Dzuiban, Moskal, Cavanagh, & Watts, 2012). The online media tools available in a blended course can also significantly enhance student engagement, ensuring that all students participate in course discussions and benefit from collaborative learning (Moskal and Cavanagh, 2014).
Below are some findings from a research study that involved 20 participating American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) institutions. These 20 institutions enroll 250,000 students of which 33% are low-income, and 75% are 25 years old or under (Moskal and Cavanagh, 2014).
|Preference to teach a future blended course (n=73)|
|1% 6% 19% 21% 53%|
|Top five positive aspects of teaching a blended course (n=62)|
|Best of both worlds/convenient/broader range of materials Individualized/more attention to students
More/better interactions with students
Increases student independence
More face-to-face class time for specifics
|42% 21% 21% 13% 8%|
|Top five negative aspects of teaching a blended course ( n=44)|
|Doesn't work for students lacking discipline
Problems for students not computer savvy
Issues cut into face-to-face time
Lessened importance of online assignments
|28% 25% 18% 16% 16%|
|Student satisfaction with blended course (n=1,131)|
Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
|7% 9% 25% 31% 29%|
|Top five things students like most about blended learning (n=736)|
Instructor (or other class characteristics)
Use of technology in learning
Easy methods of/and getting help
Able to review content/access material whenever
|43% 16% 15% 10% 9%|
|Top five things students like least about blended learning (n=807)|
Instructor/other class characteristics
Less teaching time by instructor/less actual class time
|17% 17% 13% 13% 9%|
|Students' likelihood of enrolling in future blended courses (n=1,313)|
|11% 9% 22% 24% 34%|
Dzuiban, C., Moskal, P., Cavanagh, T., & Watts, A. (2012). Analytics that inform the university: Using data you already have. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(3), 21-38.
Moskal, P. & Cavanagh, T. "Scaling Blended Learning Evaluation Beyond the University." Blended Learning Research Perspectives: Volume 2. Ed. Anthony Picciano, Charles Dzuiban, and Charles Graham. New York, NY, Routledge, 2014.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning Evaluation and Policy Development.