You are here:

Student Engagement and Satisfaction Between Different Undergraduate Blended Learning Courses
PROCEEDING

, , University of Alberta, Canada

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Washington, DC, United States Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

The University of Alberta has established a special funding envelope to support the implementation of digital learning activities across the university. In early spring 2014, seven undergraduate courses received funding for redevelopment into a blended learning format. The purpose of this study was to compare student engagement and satisfaction in these different courses. The study used an alternative treatment post-test-only with nonequivalent group design, and a total of 569 undergraduate students participated in the post-test online survey. Results showed statistically significant differences in student engagement and satisfaction scores between the courses. Even though these results are aligned with the current literature, student engagement was influenced by the level of the course, and student satisfaction was permeated by the sense of intimacy and connection with the instructor over the online videos.

Citation

Vargas Madriz, F. & Nocente, N. (2016). Student Engagement and Satisfaction Between Different Undergraduate Blended Learning Courses. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 1443-1448). Washington, DC, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 9, 2024 from .

© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2014). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research& Development, 34(1), 1-14.
  2. Alrushiedat, N., & Olfman, L. (2013). Aiding Participation and Engagement in a Blended Learning Environment. Journal of Information Systems Education, 24(2), 133-145.
  3. Bates, S., & Galloway, R. (2012). The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introductory physics course: a case study.
  4. Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R., Tamim, R., & Abrami, P. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122. Doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
  5. Chen, P.-S.D., Lambert, A.D., & Guidry, K.R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers& Education, 54(4), 1222-1232.
  6. Harris, P., Connolly, J., & Feeney, L. (2009). Blended learning: overview and recommendations for successful implementation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(3), 155-163.
  7. Henrie, C.R., Bodily, R., Manwaring, K.C., & Graham, C.R. (2015). Exploring Intensive Longitudinal Measures of Student Engagement in Blended Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 131-155.
  8. Hernández Nanclares, N., & Pérez Rodríguez, M. (2016). Students’ Satisfaction with a Blended Instructional Design: The Potential of “Flipped Classroom” in Higher Education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education(1), 1-12.
  9. Holley, D., & Dobson, C. (2008). Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning environment: The use of contemporary learning spaces. Learning, Media and technology, 33(2), 139-150.
  10. Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits of risk. Computers& Education, 54(3), 693-700. Doi:10.1016/J.compedu.2009.08.035
  11. Lin, S.-Y., Aiken, J.M., Seaton, D.T., Douglas, S.S., Greco, E.F., Thoms, B.D., & Schatz, M.F. (2016). Exploring University Students' Engagement with Online Video Lectures in a Blended Introductory Mechanics Course.
  12. Lin, Y.C., Chung, P., Yeh, R.C., & Chen, Y.C. (2016). An Empirical Study of College Students' Learning Satisfaction and Continuance Intention to Stick with a Blended e-Learning Environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(2), 63-66. Doi:10.3991/ijet.v11i2.5078
  13. Lo, C.C. (2010). How student satisfaction factors affect perceived learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 47-54.
  14. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A m etaanalysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.
  15. Montgomery, A.P., Hayward, D.V., Dunn, W., Carbonaro, M., & Amrhein, C.G. (2015). Blending for Student Engagement: Lessons Learned for MOOCs and Beyond. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(6), 657-670.
  16. Moskal, P., Thompson, K., & Futch, L. (2015). Enrollment, Engagement, and Satisfaction in the BlendKit Faculty Development Open, Online Course. Online Learning, 19(4), 100-111.
  17. Osgerby, J. (2013). Students' perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Accounting Education, 22(1), 85-99.
  18. Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38-46. Doi:10.1016/J.iheduc.2012.12.003
  19. Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students' experiences and preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292-297. Doi:10.1016/J.iheduc.2010.09.004
  20. Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers& Education, 54(1), 222-229.
  21. Tomas, L., Lasen, M., Field, E., & Skamp, K. (2015). Promoting Online Students’ Engagement and Learning in Science and Sustainability Preservice Teacher Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(40).
  22. Umek, L., Aristovnik, A., Tomaževič, N., & Keržič, D. (2015). Analysis of Selected Aspects of Students’ Performance and Satisfaction in a Moodle-Based E-Learning System Environment. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science& Technology Education, 11(6), 1495-1505.
  23. Vaughan, N.D. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement and course redesign. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 60-65.
  24. Wu, J.-H., Tennyson, R.D., & Hsia, T.-L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers& Education, 55(1), 155-164. Doi:10.1016/J.compedu.2009.12.012

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections