Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 83–104 | Cite as

Blended learning in computing education: It’s here but does it work?

  • Ellen F. MonkEmail author
  • Kevin R. Guidry
  • Kathleen Langan Pusecker
  • Thomas W. Ilvento
Article

Abstract

Blended learning, a combination of face-to-face and computer-assisted pedagogy, is gaining acceptance at universities as an alternative learning experience. Modern technology has given faculty new ways to incorporate active learning and increase student engagement in their courses. Although the broad history of technology-enhanced coursework has demonstrated that student learning is usually very comparable to what occurs in traditional coursework, recent studies focusing specifically on blended learning in totally redesigned classes report positive results. Were those positive results due to the online blending or to the redesign of the class? To answer this question and other limitations and challenges in past studies, the authors present their unique research that measures learning in a blended undergraduate management information systems course where identical classes were compared, one being all face-to-face and one being one-third online. By varying only course modality, this research answers the question of whether blended learning is a superior learning environment in an undergraduate MIS class, a second-level MIS class covering ERP, business processes, databases, advanced spreadsheets, and data analytics. Collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, the authors use a critical realism lens to create a mechanism for learning. Quantitative data, analyzed by multiple regression models and qualitative data, analyzed by content analysis lead to the outcome that learning is comparable to traditional coursework, grade-wise, but students prefer face-to-face class time. It also reveals that self-regulatory skills are evident, confirming that blended learning can aid in the construction of learning.

Keywords

Blended learning Constructivism Critical realism E-learning Hybrid learning 

Notes

References

  1. Al-Huneidi, A., & Schreurs, J. (2013). Constructivism based blended learning in higher education, world summit on knowledge society 2011. CCIS, 278, 581–591.Google Scholar
  2. Arbaugh, J. B., M. R. Godfrey, M. Johnson, B. L. Pollack, B. Niendorf, & Wresch, W. (2009). Research in online and blended learning in the business disciplines: Key findings and possible future directions, Internet and Higher Education. 12, 71–87Google Scholar
  3. Alrushiedat, N., & Olfman, L. (2013). Aiding participation and engagement in a blended learning environment. Journal of Information Systems Education, 24(2), 133–145.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). London: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2005). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local design. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  7. Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broadbent, J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner’s self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bygstad, B. & Munkvold, B. E. (2011). In search of mechanisms. conducting a critical realist data analysis, thirty second international conference on information systems, 6 December 2011 Shanghai: ICIS.Google Scholar
  10. Castle, S. R., & McGuire, C. J. (2010). An analysis of student self-assessment of online blended, and face-to-face learning environments: Implications for sustainable education delivery, international education studies. 3(3):36-40.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation Design & Analysis Issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Cunningham, D. J. (1992). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction a conversation (pp. 35–44). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. De Corte, E. (2003). Transfer as the productive use of acquired knowledge, skills, and motivations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(12), 142–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Demirer, V., & Sahin, I. (2009). Effect of blended learning environment on transfer of learning: An experimental study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 518–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Du, C. (2011). A Comparison of Traditional And Blended Learning In Introductory Principles of Accounting Course, American Journal of Business Education. 4(9), 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction a conversation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. EL-Deghaidy, H., & Nouby, A. (2008). Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher-education programme. Computers & Education, 51(3), 988–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellis, R. A., & Bliuc, A. (2016). An exploration into first-year university students’ approaches to inquiry and online learning technologies in blended environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 970–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ellis, R. A., Pardo, A., & Han, F. (2016). Quality in blended learning environments – Significant differences in how students approach learning collaborations. Computers & Education, 102(102), 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farley, A., Jain, A., & Thomson, D. (2011). Blended learning in finance: Comparing student perceptions of lectures, tutorials and online learning environments across different year levels. Economic Papers, 30(1), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies. Internet and Higher Education, 18(18), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gomez, L. A. O., & Duart, J. M. (2012). A hybrid approach to university subject learning activities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 18(18), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hadjerrouit, S. (2008). Towards a blended learning model for teaching and learning computer programming: A case study. Informatics in Education., 7(2), 181–210.Google Scholar
  26. Hamilton, J., & Tee, S. W. (2010). Smart utilization of tertiary instructional modes. Computers & Education, 54(54), 1036–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamilton, J., & Tee, S. W. (2013). Blended teaching and learning: A two-way systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(5), 748–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartono, E., Monk, E.F., & Serva, M. (2015). Rethinking the introduction to computing class: Follow-up and reporting results from a blended-learning model, AIS educator association 17th Annual Conference (AISEA), June 2015, Colorado Springs, Colorado.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, N., Chew, E., Jones, C., & Lau, A. (2009). Over the worst or at the eye of the storm? Education and Training, 51(1), 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keith, N. K., & Simmers, C. S. (2013). Adapting the marketing educational environment for multi-cultural millennials: The Chinese experience. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal., 17(3), 83–92.Google Scholar
  31. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: AAC&U.Google Scholar
  32. Lindorff, M., & McKeown, T. (2013). An aid to transition? The perceived utility of online resources for on-campus first year management students. Education and Training, 55(4/5), 414–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lopez-Perez, M. V., Perez-Lopez, M. C., & Rodriguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56(56), 818–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lopez-Perez, M. V., Perez-Lopez, M. C., Rodriguez-Ariza, L., & Argente-Linares, E. (2013). The influence of the use of technology on student outcomes in a blended learning context. Education Technical Research Development., 61(61), 625–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manwaring, K., Larsen, R., Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Halverson, L. R. (2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. The Internet and Higher Education., 35(35), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 1, 18–23.Google Scholar
  37. McKenzie, W. A., Perini, E., Rohlf, V., Toukhsati, S., Conduit, R., & Sanson, G. (2013). A blended learning lecture delivery model for large and diverse undergraduate cohorts. Computers & Education, 64(64), 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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, 1–47.Google Scholar
  39. Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information Technology in Organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Osgerby, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Accounting Education: An International Journal., 22(1), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Owston, R. (2013). Blended learning policy and implementation: Introduction to the special issue. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist Approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, M. L. (2006). Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research. Information and Organization, 16, 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stockwell, B. R., Stockwell, M. S., Cennamo, M., & Jiang, E. (2015). Blended learning improves science education. Cell., 162, 933–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tynan, B., Ryan, Y., & Lamont-Mills, A. (2013). Examining workload models in online and blended teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  49. Yudko, E., Hirokawa, R., & Chi, R. (2008). Attitudes, beliefs, and attendance in a hybrid course. Computers & Education, 50(50), 1217–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ellen F. Monk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kevin R. Guidry
    • 2
  • Kathleen Langan Pusecker
    • 2
  • Thomas W. Ilvento
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Accounting and MISUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Center for Teaching and Assessment of LearningUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Applied Economics and StatisticsUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations