Skip to main content
Log in

Students’ performance in blended learning: disciplinary difference and instructional design factors

  • Published:
Journal of Computers in Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Significant enhancement in students’ learning performance has been noticed in blended learning courses. Yet, the differential effect of blended learning as a function of disciplinary difference has not widely been explored. Moreover, studies on the critical factors related to students’ performance measured by objective course grades are recognized to a lesser extent compared with those using self-reported or perceived learning achievement. In the present study, the effect of blended learning in hard and soft courses is discerned. Factors related to students’ performance measured by final course grades are unraveled, controlling for the effects of gender and prior learning achievement. The participants (N = 571) are students following blended learning courses at a public university in Vietnam. A questionnaire is employed to collect data, which is subject to confirmatory factor analysis and hierarchical regression analyses. The results show that students in soft disciplines obtain higher grades than peers in hard disciplines. Clear goals and expectations, material quality, and collaborative learning are significant predictors of students’ performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akkoyunlu, B., & Yılmaz-Soylu, M. (2008). Development of a scale on learners' views on blended learning and its implementation process. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anders, A. (2015). Theories and applications of massive online open courses (MOOCs): The case for hybrid design. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6), 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 5, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J. B. (2010). Sage, guide, both, or even more? An examination of instructor activity in online MBA courses. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1234–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J. B. (2013). Does academic discipline moderate CoI-course outcomes relationships in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 16–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., et al. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asarta, C. J., & Schmidt, J. R. (2017). Comparing student performance in blended and traditional courses: Does prior academic achievement matter? The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asoodar, M., Vaezi, S., & Izanloo, B. (2016). Framework to improve e-learner satisfaction and further strengthen e-learning implementation. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 704–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausburn, L. J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, S. A., Parente, J. M., & Sathianathan, D. (2004). Effects of faculty interaction and feedback on gains in student skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(2), 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R. M., Tamim, R. M., Schmid, R. F., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2016). Technology-supported student interaction in post-secondary education: A meta-analysis of designed versus contextual treatments. Computers & Education, 96, 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M., & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in open and distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information & Management, 48(1), 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. Y., Wang, C. Y., Lee, M. H., Wu, H. K., Liang, J. C., Lee, S. W. Y., et al. (2015). A review of features of technology-supported learning environments based on participants’ perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 223–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chyung, S. Y. Y. (2007). Age and gender differences in online behavior, self-efficacy, and academic performance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 213–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, B. W., Lovato, S., Tull, C., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2011). Faculty perceptions of adult learners in college classrooms. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(2), 77–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diep, N. A., Cocquyt, C., Zhu, C., & Vanwing, T. (2016). Predicting adult learners’ online participation: Effects of altruism, performance expectancy, and social capital. Computers & Education, 101, 84–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2018). Staying motivated to e-learn: Person-and variable-centred perspectives on the longitudinal risks and support. Computers & Education, 120, 227–240.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online distance education. Handbook of Distance Education, 1, 113–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonulal, T. (2019). Missing data management practices in L2 research: The good, the bad and the ugly. Erzincan University Education Faculty Journal, 21(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, M. L., & Chou, C. (2015). Students' perceptions of instructors' roles in blended and online learning environments: A comparative study. Computers & Education, 81, 315–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. S. (2017). Collaborative technologies, higher order thinking and self-sufficient learning: A case study of adult learners. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. H., Hassell, J. M., Webber, S. A., & Johnson, J. N. (2009). A comparison of academic performance in traditional and hybrid sections of introductory managerial accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 27(3), 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A. Y. A., & Kim, H. J. (2017). The Effectiveness of instructor feedback for learning-oriented language assessment: Using an integrated reading-to-write task for English for academic purposes. Assessing Writing, 32, 57–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, K. M., Geng, S., & Li, T. (2019). Student enrollment, motivation and learning performance in a blended learning environment: The mediating effects of social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Computers & Education, 136, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L. T., & Hung, J. C. (2015). Effects of blended e-Learning: A case study in higher education tax learning setting. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 5(1), 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, C. C. (2010). How student satisfaction factors affect perceived learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10, 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J., Wilson, R., Liem, G. A. D., & Ginns, P. (2013). Academic momentum at university/college: Exploring the roles of prior learning, life experience, and ongoing performance in academic achievement across time. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(5), 640–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milheim, K. L. (2012). Towards a better experience: Examining student needs in the online classroom through Maslow's hierarchy of needs model. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education., 3(2), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mupinga, D. M., Nora, R. T., & Yaw, D. C. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students. College Teaching, 54(1), 185–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owston, R., & York, D. N. (2018). The nagging question when designing blended courses: Does the proportion of time devoted to online activities matter. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual. Checking the reliability of a scale. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pektas, S. T., & Gurel, M. O. (2014). Blended learning in design education: An analysis of students' experiences within the disciplinary differences framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, B. (2010). (My) three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poll, K., Widen, J., & Weller, S. (2014). Six instructional best practices for online engagement and retention. Journal of Online Doctoral Education, 1(1), 56–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reaburn, P., Muldoon, N., & Bookallil, C. (2009). Blended spaces work based learning and constructive alignment: Impacts on student engagement. Same places, different space (pp. 820–831). Auckland: Ascilite.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rienties, B., & Toetenel, L. (2016). The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 333–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2007). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education/Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance, 18(1), 57–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2012). Learning presence as a moderator in the community of inquiry model. Computers & Education, 59(2), 316–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Pickett, A., et al. (2012). Learning presence: Additional research on a new conceptual element within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., & Van der Meijden, H. (2015). An examination of online learning effectiveness using data mining. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 555–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. G., Heindel, A. J., & Torres-Ayala, A. T. (2008). E-learning commodity or community: Disciplinary differences between online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 152–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran, T. D. (2010). Sharing experience of ICT application in education at Can Tho university. OpenCourseWare Consortium’s Fifth Annual Conference in Hanoi, Vietnam from 5–7 May, 2010. Retrieved from: https://www.slideshare.net/OCWConsortium/ocw-at-ctu-tran-thanh-dien

  • Tsai, P. S., Tsai, C. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2012). Developing a survey for assessing preferences in constructivist context-aware ubiquitous learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 250–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volchok, E. (2019). Differences in the performance of male and female students in partially online courses at a community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(12), 904–920.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 289–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. J. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using asynchronous tools in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 830–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, S., & Liccardi, I. (2006, October). Harnessing insight into disciplinary differences to refine e-learning design. In: Proceedings in Frontiers in Education, 36th Annual Conference (pp. 5–10). IEEE.

  • Wilson, B. G., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C. L., & Dunlap, J. C. (2004). Bounded community: Designing and facilitating learning communities in formal courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(3), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students' motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916–930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 633–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S. H. (2016). Conceptualizing effective feedback practice through an online community of inquiry. Computers & Education, 94, 162–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacharis, N. Z. (2015). A multivariate approach to predicting student outcomes in web-enabled blended learning courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Ministry of Education and Training (VN) (Grant No. 911).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minh Hien Vo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vo, M.H., Zhu, C. & Diep, A.N. Students’ performance in blended learning: disciplinary difference and instructional design factors. J. Comput. Educ. 7, 487–510 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00164-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00164-7

Keywords

Navigation