How Does the Learning Channel Affect Student Satisfaction in Hybrid Courses

  • Nestori SyynimaaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 865)


The traditional instructor-led classroom training has been a dominant training method for millennia. During the past few decades, the information and communications technology have evolved in giant leaps. This has brought new options for providing of and participating in training. Online participation has been found to be a cost-effective way to attend training using standard consumer technology. It allows people to attend to training regardless their physical location, allowing them to deal with the time and cost pressures typically faced in workplaces. But is online participation as effective as classroom training? Previous studies in the higher education sector have demonstrated that the student satisfaction and learning outcomes do not differ between online and classroom participants. However, little is known how does the learning channel affect commercial ICT-training, where typical courses are full-day instructor lead courses lasting one to four days. We studied student satisfaction of a commercial ICT-training provider, which provides hybrid courses having both online and classroom participants. As anticipated, the results show that online participants are not as satisfied with course arrangements as the classroom participants. The most surprising finding is that there is a small, but statistically significant, difference how participants perceive teacher’s substance skills. This suggests that teachers might not be able to share their knowledge online as effectively as in the classroom. The results also provide some techniques and tools which could improve online participants’ satisfaction.


Learning channel Online training Online learning 



The author would like to express his gratitude to TrainingCorp for providing access to the feedback data used in this study.


  1. 1.
    Lokken, F., Mullins, C.: ITC 2013 distance education survey results, in trends in eLearning: tracking the impact of eLearning at community colleges, Washington (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger, R.: Corporate learning goes digital. How companies can benefit from online education. Roland Derber Strategy Consultants, Munich, 20 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trainingmag: Training Industry Report 2016, Trainingmag (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson, S.D., et al.: Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 11(1), 29–49 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allen, M., et al.: Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Distance Educ. 16(2), 83–97 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Merisotis, J.P., Phipps, R.A.: What’s the difference?: outcomes of distance vs. traditional classroom-based learning. Change Mag. High. Learn. 31(3), 12–17 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Syynimaa, N.: Does the learning channel really matter? Insights from commercial online ICT-training. In: 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017), April 21st–23rd 2017. INSTICC, Porto, Portugal (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leppänen, S.M., Syynimaa, N.: From learning 1.0 to learning 2.0: key concepts and enablers. In: 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2015). INSTICC, Lisbon, Portugal (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koper, R.: Conditions for effective smart learning environments. Smart Learn. Environ. 1(5), 1–17 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roth, W.-M.: Gestures: their role in teaching and learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 71(3), 365–392 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schertz, J.: Updating the CX5000 and RoundTable firmware, 20th April 2017 (2012).
  12. 12.
    Sun, P.-C., et al.: What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 50(4), 1183–1202 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knipe, D., Lee, M.: The quality of teaching and learning via videoconferencing. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 33(3), 301–311 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Gerenios LtdTampereFinland
  3. 3.Sovelto PlcHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations