FINDING THE PERFECT BLEND: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF

ONLINE, FACE-TO-FACE, AND BLENDED INSTRUCTION

Agnes Goz Pearcy, B.A., M.S.

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

August 2009

APPROVED:

Philip Turner, Major Professor

Brian OConnor, Committee Member
Deanna Bush, Committee Member
Maurice Wheeler, Interim Chair of the
Department of Library and
Information Sciences
Herman L. Totten, Dean of the College of
Information
Michael Monticino, Dean of the Robert B.
Toulouse School of Graduate Studies
 Pearcy, Agnes Goz. Finding the perfect blend: A comparative study of online, face-to-

face, and blended instruction. Doctor of Philosophy (Information Science), August 2009,

121 pp., 13 tables, 3 illustrations, references, 96 titles.

As distance learning evolved, course designers and teachers quickly recognized the

value of integrating online features into the classroom. The result was blended learning, a

combination of online and face-to-face components. This complex and dynamic new form of

education has raised many questions about the role of computer-mediated communication in

education and has provided new opportunities for extending research in learning and

communication.

The purpose of the study was to determine whether a blended class will produce

different (and possibly better) results in terms of student perceptions of the overall learning

experience and student satisfaction than traditional lecture-based face-to-face instruction or

learning that is delivered entirely online. The main goals of this study were to compare the

effectiveness of face-to-face, online, and blended instruction, and to examine the role of

interactions in the effectiveness of each educational method.

While each form of instruction received very positive feedback from both students

and instructors and the newly introduced blended courses proved very successful in terms of

overall satisfaction with the learning experience, the traditional lecture-based courses

produced more positive attitudes toward the subject matter. The possible causes of these

discrepancies between some of the quantitative and qualitative results point toward the role of

previous experience with online learning, cognitive development, and learning styles.
 Copyright 2009

by

Agnes Goz Pearcy

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank my dissertation committee, Philip Turner, Brian OConnor, and

Deanna Bush, for their guidance and encouragement. This study would not have been

possible without the participation of the blended faculty and the students at the University of

North Texas. Thank you.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .................................................................................................. vii

Chapters

1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ........................1

Initial Problem Statement
Importance of the Problem
Definition of Terms

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................6

Introduction
The Role of Interaction in the Educational Process
Interaction in Learning and Communication Theories
Conclusions

3. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................21
Introduction
Research Questions
Research Hypotheses
Population and Sample
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data Analysis
Summary and Limitations of the Study

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ..............................................................34

Introduction
Organization of Data Analysis
Research Questions and Associated Hypotheses
Qualitative Data Analysis and Results
Student Experiences
Faculty Experiences
Summary

iv
 5. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................72
Introduction
Summary of the Study
Findings
Conclusions
Implications
Future Research
Summary

APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................91

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................109

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Perceived Course Success Rates ..................................................................................38

2. Student Ratings of the Learning Experience ...............................................................38

3. Multiple Comparisons of Course Ratings ....................................................................39

4. Differences in Attitude Changes Toward Subject .......................................................41

5. Attitude Toward Subject Pre-Test Results ...................................................................42

6. Attitude Toward Subject Post-test Results ..................................................................43

7. Pearsons r for the Relationship Between Final Scores and Online Activity ..............45

8. Pearsons r for the Relationship Between Final Scores and Online Activity in Online
Sections ........................................................................................................................47

9. Pearsons r for the Relationship Between Final Scores and Online Activity in Blended
Sections ........................................................................................................................48

10. Group Statistics for Final Scores in Online and Blended Sections ..............................50

11. Independent t-Test Results for Final Scores and Online Interactions in Online and
Blended Sections ..........................................................................................................51

12. Chi Square Test of Independence Crosstabulations for Students Perceived

Interactions vs. Their Overall Satisfaction with the Learning Experience ..................53

13. Chi Square Test of Independence Crosstabulations for Students Perceived

Interactions vs. Class Format (Blended and Online) ...................................................56

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. Educational Interactions.................................................................................................9

2. Pre-Test Confidence Intervals for Attitude Scores ......................................................42

3. Post-Test Confidence Intervals for Attitude Scores.....................................................43

vii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Learning traditionally gets measured as on the assumption that it is a possession of

individuals that can be found inside their heads [Here] learning is in the
relationships between people. (McDermott)

Initial Problem Statement

Numerous comparative studies of traditional and online education have concluded

that online learning can be as successful and effective as traditional learning. Certain learning

and communication theories suggest that a third alternative blended learning, a combination

of distance and face-to-face learning has the potential to produce even better results than

either alone. The advantage of blending is that it may combine the strengths of face-to-face

(more intimate interactions, potential for immediate feedback) and online learning

(asynchronous setting, technology, and interactive features). Blended learning, however, is

not a single recipe (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2004). There are many ways of combining

online and face-to-face learning, falling anywhere along a spectrum between entirely face-to-

face and entirely online education. The optimum balance can vary depending on the subject

matter and the learning situation.

Although many case studies and guidelines have been published about blended

learning, there are only a limited number of studies that compare blended instruction with

both traditional and online learning. Most of these comparative studies examine only one

course and focus on the relationships between no more than a couple of variables. In order to

gain a better understanding of what makes blended learning successful and what are the

optimal blends of the synchronous and asynchronous learning events that support learning in

various disciplines, large scale studies of courses of different subject matter are needed.

1
 Why should a blended class produce different (and possibly better) results in terms of

learning outcomes and student satisfaction than traditional face-to-face or entirely online

classes? Previous research and certain learning and communication theories indicate that

interaction is one of the key variables in the learning process and that it should be the focus of

investigation when comparing the various forms of education. In blended learning, the

combination of synchronous and asynchronous learning events and the opportunities for

collaborative and problem-based learning are likely to increase the quantity and quality of

interactions. The goal of this study was to examine how interactions vary across face-to-face,

blended, and entirely online classes, and how the quantity of these interactions might impact

the effectiveness of these courses in terms of students perceptions of the course success and

their satisfaction with the overall learning experience.

Importance of the Problem

Blended learning has been gaining popularity both in academia and the corporate

environment. Each has its own motives (Dewar & Whittington, 2004). In the business world,

the most important reasons for developing blended solutions include the ability to match

learning styles; to create individually tailored solutions; to reduce class time; to improve the

learning rate; and to exploit the investments already made in re-usable training resources

(Sparrow, 2003). In academia, the initial cost-saving argument for e-learning (Gayeski, 1998;

Wilson, 1999) has recently been replaced with a more refined understanding of how to

integrate technology into an overall learning strategy. Blended learning is sometimes

preferable because it provides pedagogical richness and access to knowledge, social

interaction, and personal agency. It also can be cost effective and facilitate revision

(Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003).

2
 Another explanation for the increasing popularity of blended learning is that there has

been a somewhat natural movement to add limited components of each extreme to the other

of adding some online elements to traditional face-to-face classes and including limited

classroom time to online courses. In 2000, the ASTD Benchmarking Service of over 950

business organizations noted that there was a growing movement away from e-learning in

favor of in-class training (Saunders & Werner, 2004). While Mantyla (2001) also reported

that learners prefer a live instructor, many organizations did not go so far as to abandon

virtual learning but instead found ways to merge technology and in-class learning.

The undeniable strengths of e-learning have also begun to affect traditional campus-

based education. Although there is still some resistance towards entirely virtual learning

environments, students as well as faculty have started to recognize the advantages of e-

learning (Jaffee, 1998). While the traditional lecture method is often preferred as the more

efficient approach, easily controlled by the teacher and conducive to predictable and

manageable student learning (Kim & Kellough, 1987), it is often criticized for stifling

creative thinking, occasioning little student involvement in decision making, and lacking

intrinsic sources for student motivation. The traditional pedagogical model is primarily

teacher-centered, and knowledge tends to be abstract and out of context. Especially in large-

enrollment classes, students do not have a chance to benefit from collaborative learning.

Traditional classroom discussions, where vocal students tend to dominate, can frustrate

learners with a more introverted personality. Additionally, discussions may be superficial,

spontaneous, and limited (Rovai & Jordan, 2004), and traditional lecture-based courses may

fail to promote deep learning (Campbell, 1998).

E-learning, on the other hand, provides flexibility in time and space as well as

increased communication and interaction capabilities (Anderson, 2004). As a result of its

increased access to an ever-growing body of online content, e-learning also supports the

3
constructivist instructional design theory that stresses the importance of individual discovery

and construction of knowledge (Jonassen, 1991). The reliance on collaborative written

communication lends itself to concurrent critical reflection and discourse, and it ultimately

leads to higher-order (or deep) learning outcomes (Kinsel, Cleveland-Innes, & Garrison,

2004). For faculty and students not entirely comfortable with technology-based education,

blended learning might offer an ideal solution and ease them into the use of technology.

Blended learning might also be a viable means for introducing asynchronous online learning

in campus based universities with little risk and minimal resistance (Garrison & Cleveland-

Innes, 2004).

Blended learning has the potential to improve learning experiences by adding the

advantages of online instruction to traditional classroom settings; however, the magic is in

the mix, and there is no custom recipe that would help create the ideal blend for every

learning situation. The five blended courses developed at the University of North Texas

provided an excellent opportunity to conduct a large scale study comparing the effectiveness

of face-to-face, online, and blended instruction. This study examined large-enrollment

undergraduate courses and focused on the quality and quantity of student-student, student-

instructor, and student-content interactions and the impact of these interactions on the

learning experience in the several learning environments. Interrelationships among other

variables, such as students perceived interactions and changes in their attitude toward subject

were also examined.

Definition of Terms

Blended learning:

Blended learning is a learning solution that provides a mix of online and face-to-face

elements. It has been further refined to mean a learning solution that contains a mix of

4
formats, media, and experiences, including informational and instructional elements,

synchronous and asynchronous learning, self-paced and instructor-led learning.

Online learning:

Online learning is the newest form of distance learning primarily based on

asynchronous text-based communication over the Web. For the purposes of this project, the

terms online learning, e-learning, and distance learning are used interchangeably.

Traditional (or face-to-face) learning:

The lecture and textbook method of instructional delivery where the instructor and a

group of learners are physically present in the same classroom.

Interaction:

Interactions are reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions

(Wagner, 1994). The main types of educational interaction are teacher-student, student-

student, student-content, and student-interface interactions (Moore, 1989; Hillman, Willis, &

Gunawardena, 1994).

5
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

As previous research findings and theories of distance education indicate, interaction

is one of the key variables in studying the learning process. The first part of the literature

review discusses why interactions should be the focus of investigation when examining the

differences between face-to-face, online, and blended instruction and how this project can

take a significant step beyond what is already known about the role of interaction in the

learning process. The second part provides a theoretical base for the study with a summary of

related learning and communication theories that emphasize the importance of interaction in

the learning process.

The Role of Interaction in the Educational Process

Interaction has long been a defining and critical component of the educational

process and context (Anderson, 2004). Wagner (1994) defines interactions as reciprocal

events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects

and events mutually influence one another (p. 8). Interactions serve a variety of functions in

the educational transaction (Sims, 1999). These functions allow for learner control,

facilitating program adaptation based on learner input, allowing various forms of

participation and communication, and acting as an aid to meaningful learning. Constructivist

learning theorists (Jonassen, 1991) especially emphasize the role of interaction in gaining

other peoples perspective during the learning process.

6
 Interaction has always been an important factor in distance education. Holmberg

(1989) argued for the superiority of individualized student-teacher interaction and introduced

the concept of guided didactic interaction (the idea of simulated interaction). In Laurillards

(1997) conversational model of learning, interaction between students and teachers plays the

critical role. Garrison and Shale (1990) define education essentially as interactions between

contents, students, and teachers.

Interactivity, a concept related to interaction, is a characteristic of the technology

itself (Woods & Baker, 2004). It is fundamental to the creation of online learning

communities (Lipman, 1991; Wenger, 1991) and it should be the primary criterion for

selecting media for educational delivery (Bates, 1991). The various forms of media used in

distance education are very different in terms of their capacity to support interaction and their

capacity to support independence of time and space. The higher and richer the form of

communication in terms of supporting interaction, the more restrictions it places on

independence of time and distance (Anderson, 2004).

Types of Interaction

Moore (1989) has identified the three most common types of interaction in distance

learning. He argues that interactions are not limited to teacher-student interaction, but also

include interactions between students and students, and students and content. Learner-teacher

interaction is what differentiates self-study from distance education. The instructor provides

the learner with an organized plan, or curriculum, for mastering the content and

communicates with the learner throughout the process (Kelsey & D'souza, 2004).

Learner-learner interactions can take various forms including group projects and

discussion groups. Interestingly, the contribution of learner-learner interactions to the overall

effectiveness of distance education in the literature has been mixed. Some students reported

7
that other learners were essential to their success in a course, while others suggested that

fellow learners actually detracted from their success (Biner, Welsh, Barone, Summers, &

Dean, 1997).

Learner-content interaction occurs when a student reads a book, views pre-recorded

video, or in some way interacts with inanimate learning resources. In order to master the

content, the learner must engage in an internal didactic conversation (Holmberg, 1983).

Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) added learner-interface interaction to

Moores (1989) framework. Learner-interface interaction occurs between the learner and the

technologies used to deliver instruction. Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) argue that

a students skill with the communication medium necessary to participate in a distance

education course is positively correlated with success in that course. In order to gain any

meaning from the course content, the student must be literate in the communication

mediums rules of interaction (Kelsey & D'souza, 2004). Anderson and Garrison (1998)

further expanded Moores model by adding teacher-teacher, teacher-content, and content-

content interaction. Andersons (2003) recent interaction model of e-learning incorporates all

six types of interaction in an expansive framework, which will serve as a foundation for a

comparative study of interactions in face-to-face, online and blended learning environments.

8
Figure 1. Educational interactions (Anderson, 2004).

Previous Research on Interaction in the Learning Environment

Comparative studies of face-to-face and online instruction as well as case studies of

online or blended courses often conclude that most problems associated with online

instruction result from a lack of quality interaction (Burnside, 2001; Haythornthwaite, et al.,

2000; Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Hara & Kling, 1999; DeLacey & Leonard, 2002).

Interaction serves not only as a means to make students feel connected (Rovai, 2004), but

also as an integral part of learning (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2004). As Harasim (1989)

points out, knowledge building occurs as students explore issues, examine one anothers

arguments, agree, disagree, and question positions. Collaboration [learner-learner interaction]

contributes to higher order learning through cognitive restructuring or conflict resolution (p.

55).

The results of Keefes (2003) study on the impact of interactions on student

performance supports the view that high quality student interactions are essential to positive

student outcomes. Student interaction is central to teaching and learning, and the online use

9
of interaction needs to develop further to be as effective as face-to-face interaction (Keefe,

2003, p. 29). The most important role of instructors is to ensure a high degree of interactivity

and participation (Kearsley, 2000) by promoting student interaction (De Verneil & Berge,

2000).

Results of Keefes (2003) study indicate that differences in the amount of interactions

accounted for the bulk of differences in grades. These results imply that designers should

increase the quantity and quality of interactions as a way of improving the quality of their

courses. Keefe (2003) essentially describes blended learning when suggests that technology

can be used to enhance a traditional class by moving lectures out of the classroom to free up

classroom time for additional value-added interactions (Keefe, 2003). The implication for

designers is that computers should be used to increase levels of student interaction based on

frequent dialogue and prompt feedback.

Chen and Jones (2007) reported that students in a blended section on average

contacted their instructor more often outside of class than students in the traditional section of

the same course. Students from both sections indicated that the predominant form of contact

was email. Chen and Jones (2007) also found that blended students had stronger perceptions

of improvement in their analytical skills than those who took the same course in the

traditional classroom setting. They attributed this to the fact that blended students used their

computers to access additional resource to broaden their understanding of the course concepts

and possibly became more engaged in the material and more involved in the learning process.

Woods and Baker (2004) also agree that online education environments offer an

opportunity for increased interaction. High levels of interaction, particularly those that

promote social engagement, can have positive effect on the learning experience. As previous

research on the relationship between perceived interaction and student satisfaction (Fulford &

Zhang, 1993; Arbaugh, 2000; LaRose & Whitten, 2000) suggests, interaction alone, however,

10
is insufficient to create a positive social dynamic in the online classroom. Woods and Baker

(2004) argue that the integration of verbal and non-verbal immediacy communication

behaviors lets instructors move from mere interaction to authentic intimacy and interpersonal

closeness.

Rovai and Jordan (2004) examined the relationship of the sense of community

between traditional classroom, blended, and fully online higher education learning

environments. They found that the blended course possessed a significantly higher adjusted

mean connectedness score than either the traditional or online courses with a large effect size.

The blended course also possessed a significantly higher adjusted mean learning score than

the online course, but with a medium effect size. Rovai and Jordan (2004) argue that

interactions should result in increased socialization, a stronger sense of being connected and

increased construction of knowledge through discourse, thus providing stronger feelings that

educational goals were being satisfied by community membership. Through focused

interaction within the community comes the critical evaluation and synthesis of ideas. Thus,

online communities of inquiry are crucial to successful higher-order learning outcomes

(Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2004). In order to achieve higher-order learning, learners need

to learn how to adjust their roles to the new environment. Role adjustment is a continual

shifting of expectations and requirements among individuals interacting within a community

(Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2004, p. 32). Role adjustment appears to be most directly

associated with issues of interaction. Also, successful role adjustment is the key to student

satisfaction and success (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2004).

Interaction and Student Satisfaction

As previous research suggests, student satisfaction depends on students learning

experience, their sense of community, and their perception of interactions. Student

11
satisfaction can only be sustained and it only has lasting value if it is combined with a

successful learning experience (Sener & Humbert, 2003; Swan, 2001; Garrison & Cleveland-

Innes, 2004). Both satisfaction and learning are also significantly correlated with interaction,

feedback and clear expectations (Shea, Swan, Frederickson, & Pickett, 2002).

Student satisfaction may also well be associated with a feeling of community (Rivera

& Rice, 2002). While lack of support reduces students level of satisfaction (Rivera & Rice,

2002), the sense of community increases that. Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2004) suggest

that satisfaction positively correlates with interaction (especially with the teacher). Rovai and

Jordan (2004) confirm that a combination of face-to-face and online learning environments

produces a stronger sense of community, because it provides a greater range of opportunities

for students to interact with each other and with their professor.

Attitude (or affective) surveys can provide valuable information on students

perceptions (emotions, feelings, attitudes, etc.) of their course experience (Lewis & Seymour,

1997). They can reveal perceptions on course content as well as on specific components of

the course. They can also focus on students needs in taking the course, their interest in or

appreciation for the subject matter, their confidence in their ability to perform well in the

course, and their beliefs about the nature of the discipline itself. Instead of measuring

absolute attitudes toward a subject, these instruments are designed to detect and measure

changes in attitude during a course. A comparison of attitudes at the beginning and at the end

of the semester allows instructors to discover the impact of their course on student

perceptions.

There usually exists a positive correlation between attitudes and achievement, thus

attitudes can be considered indicators (or predictors) of the effectiveness of the learning

process. Miller (2003) investigated the effect on undergraduate students attitude toward the

instructional delivery when web-based course management tools were added to the traditional

12
face-to-face delivery mode. He hypothesized that students receiving instruction in different

modes would have significantly different attitudes toward the educational experience. He

found that the form of instructional delivery had no significant effect on students overall

satisfaction with the learning experience and concluded that more research should be

conducted to understand how to get the most out of student-centered instruction. The

weakness of the study is that it assumes that students have the same learning needs which can

be satisfied with one learning solution.

Havice (1999) also conducted a study to test for differences in attitude toward course

presentation between students instructed in a traditional manner and those instructed through

the use of integrated media. To measure this difference, he used the Attitude Rating Scale

(ARS) developed by Kelly, Pascarella, Terenzini, and Chapman (1976). The instrument

includes 5 dimensions, such as interest value, practical value, emotional appeal, dullness

(apathy), and difficulty. The findings of the study suggest that the type of class presentation

had little or no effect on the students total ARS attitude scores. However, the students

instructed in traditional lecture-based classes found the class presentations less dull. This

result was supported by Vamosi, Pierce, and Slotkin (2004), in their study of student

perceptions of an undergraduate accounting course, where the students indicated that online

learning was less interesting and less efficient than traditional delivery. Comparing the

relative effectiveness and overall perceptions of blended learning and traditional classroom

delivery, Chen and Jones (2007) also reported conflicting results. Despite the comparable

results regarding the effectiveness of the overall learning experience, traditional classroom

students appeared significantly more satisfied with the clarity of instruction and seemed to

have a more favorable overall perception of the instructor than the blended students. Chen

and Jones (2007) also found that blended students found the course more difficult and

reported a significantly higher degree of agreement that their analytical skills were improved.

13
 Interaction in Learning and Communication Theories

Recent views and theories on the learning process as well as certain communication

theories support the integration of learning and communication technologies into traditional

education, thus providing a theoretical background for blended learning.

Learning Theories

Teacher-Centered vs. Student-Centered Model

The traditional pedagogical model is concerned with teacher-centered instruction,

where the teacher controls the information that is transmitted to the students, usually in the

form of lectures, presentations, or demonstrations. New views on learning, however, stress

action, creativity, and social interaction in the learning process. The transformation of facts

and information into knowledge is now considered a multi-step process, and educators argue

that courses should be designed to promote this transformation process by balancing

receiving knowledge and creatively using knowledge (Zull, 2002).

The online setting offers more opportunities for collaboration than the traditional

large-enrollment lecture-based classes. Online course instructors seem to be more intentional

about fostering active learning experiences, such as asking questions or participating in

discussions. A well-designed course should take the student through the entire learning cycle

and engage several parts of the brain (Zull, 2002). Online learning is more consistent with

Knowles (1975) andragogical model of learning that emphasizes the importance of student-

centered, self-directed, problem-solving-based learning (Neville & Heavin, 2004). In online

education, learners can interact directly with content (that they find in multiple formats) or

can have their learning sequenced, directed and evaluated with the assistance of a teacher

(Woods & Baker, 2004).

14
 Engagement Theory

Engagement theory (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1999) presents a model for learning in

technology-based environments. The major premise is that students must be engaged in their

course work in order for effective learning to occur. The theory posits three primary means to

accomplish engagement: (1) an emphasis on collaborative efforts (2) project-based

assignments, and (3) non-academic focus. It is suggested that these three methods result in

learning that is creative, meaningful, and authentic. The role of technology is to facilitate all

aspects of engagement.

Situated Learning

The theory of situated learning indicates that learning is a function of the activity,

context, and culture in which it occurs. This contrasts with most classroom learning activities

that involve abstract and out-of-context knowledge. Social interaction is a critical component

of situated learning, because learners become involved in a community of practice which

embodies certain beliefs and behaviors to be acquired (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

The theory of conditions of learning stipulates that there are several different types or

levels of learning and each different type requires different types of instruction. Gagne (1985)

identifies five major categories of learning: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive

strategies, motor skills and attitudes. Different internal and external conditions are necessary

for each type of learning. For example, for cognitive strategies to be learned, there must be a

chance to practice developing new solutions to problems; to learn attitudes, the learner must

be exposed to a credible role model or persuasive arguments.

Constructivism

Constructivism is a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that, by reflecting

on previous experiences, an individual constructs his or her own meaning and understanding

15
of the world. Each individual generates his or her own rules and mental models that they use

to make sense of their experiences. Learning, therefore, is not simply memorizing answers or

reproducing someone else's meaning, but the process of adjusting our mental models to

accommodate our new experiences.

Instructional methods based on the constructivist pedagogy include (1) making links

with what students already know to encourage a sense of structure; (2) being receptive and

flexible in terms of allowing students input into course goals and methods; (3)

discussing/teaching learning skills explicitly; and (4) trying to link course topics to students

lives and career aspirations (Campbell, 1998). All of these instructional methods involve high

levels of interaction (See Jonassen, 1991; Woods & Baker, 2004; Sims, 1999).

Deep vs. Surface Learning

While deep (or higher-order) learning requires higher-order cognitive thinking skills,

such as analysis and synthesis, surface learning consists mainly of comprehension and

reproducing knowledge. Atherton (2003) points out that deep or surface learning are not

attributes of individuals. Although learners may have a preference for one or the other, they

can use both approaches at different times. Deep or surface learning also correlate fairly

closely with motivation (deep with intrinsic and surface with extrinsic motivation), but

they are not necessarily the same thing. Either approach can be adopted by a person with

either motivation.

Research indicates that there are six major factors that specifically promote deep

learning. These include good teaching, openness to students, freedom in learning (where

students have a choice in what they study), clear goals and standards, vocational relevance

(when courses are considered relevant to future careers) and good social climate. Factors that

detract from deep learning are heavy workloads and the exclusive use of formal teaching

methods such as lecturing. Reducing lecture time and extending individual study time and

16
time designated for projects can also promote deep learning. Encouraging teacher-student and

student-student interaction (e.g., group projects and peer tutoring) as well as using active and

interactive teaching methods especially help promote deep learning (Campbell, 1998).

Instructional methods that help promote deep learning include encouraging faculty-

student and student-student interactions, using active and interactive teaching methods, etc.

Since testing can sometimes run counter to this kind of learning, professors should consider

the following assessment methods: define assessment goals and tasks clearly, allow choice of

assessment tasks, stress tasks that allow time for information gathering, depth, and reflection

(projects vs. exams), encourage collaborative projects, choose tasks that require integration of

information from a range of sources, and give full and proactive feedback on labs,

assignments, and tests (Campbell, 1998).

Transactional Theory

Moores (1993) transactional distance theory is one of the fundamental theories in

distance learning. The main premise of Moores (1993) theory is that distance is a

pedagogical phenomenon, rather than a function of geographic separation, and it exists in

face-to-face as well as in distance education classes. Transactional distance is the

psychological and communication space between learners and teachers and it is a function of

dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy. As dialog increases, the structure decreases, which

minimizes the transactional distance between the teacher and the learner. The aim for each

course is to find the optimum balance of structure and dialog (Saba & Shearer, 1994).

Learning Styles

The cognitive school of learning emphasizes the importance of recognizing individual

differences and including a variety of learning strategies to accommodate those differences

17
(Ally, 2004). Learning style, one of the measures of individual differences, refers to how a

learner perceives, interacts with and responds to the learning environment. Cognitive style

refers to a learners preferred way of processing information; that is, the persons typical

mode of thinking, remembering, or problem solving. [] Cognitive style is considered to be

a personality dimension that influences attitudes, values, and social interaction (Ally, 2004).

Witkin et al. (1977) differentiate between field-dependent and field-independent

personalities. Field-independent individuals tend to approach the environment in an analytical

manner and they are more likely to learn more effectively under conditions of intrinsic

motivation. Field-dependent personalities experience events in a more global way and they

have a greater social orientation compared with field-independent people.

Communication Behavior Theories

Promoting interaction will lead to positive communication behaviors such as

instructor immediacy, social presence, and community in the online classroom (Woods &

Baker, 2004).

Immediacy

Immediacy is defined as a measure of the degree to which a source is emotionally

involved with the topic of conversation (Heath & Bryant, 1992, p. 62). Immediacy refers to

communication behaviors that reduce perceived distance between people (Thweatt &

McCroskey, 1996). Immediacy behaviors primarily include nonverbal communication

behaviors, which signal approval, indicate liking (e.g., head nods, smiles, vocal reinforcers),

and create high sensory involvement between provider and client (Infante, Rancer, &

Womack, 1997). Immediacy can also have verbal forms. While non-verbal immediacy is

understood as a sense of closeness produced by physical communication behaviors, verbal

18
immediacy is considered a sense of closeness produced by word selection. Gorham (1988)

describes verbal immediacy behaviors as linguistic differences in expression from which

feelings of like and dislike are inferred.

Social Presence Theory

Social presence theory is basically the groundwork for many theories on new medium

effects. It is based on the idea that a mediums social effects are primarily caused by the

degree of social presence it affords to its users. Social presence indicates a communicators

sense of awareness of the presence of an interaction partner. Increased presence leads to a

better person perception, because the communicator learns about other persons, their

characteristics, qualities and inner states (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Garrison and

Anderson (2003) argue that, in addition to social presence, learning communities have two

other core elements: cognitive and teaching presence. Social and cognitive presence must be

integrated through teaching presence to produce a high quality learning experience. This

integration of the external and internal, the collaborative and reflective is the key to higher-

order learning and reflects the key properties of online learning (Garrison, 2003).

As previous studies indicate, there is a positive significant relationship between sense of

community and cognitive learning (Rovai, 2002). The purpose of learning communities is to

create links among members and to meet the requirements surrounding the reason for the

community to exist (Kinsel, Cleveland-Innes, & Garrison, 2004). Successful adjustment to

the role of online learner empowers students to engage in critical discourse and achieve

higher learning outcomes (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2004). Garrison, Kanuka, and Hawes

(2002) claim that a primary obligation of a research university should be to engage students

in active, intentional, a collaborative knowledge-building communitiesor communities of

inquiry.

19
 Conclusions

Learning and communication theories suggest that the key to finding the perfect blend

for each situation is in a better understanding of the role of interactions in the learning

process. Previous studies indicate that the quality and quantity of interactions affect academic

results, the level of higher-order learning, and students perception of their learning

experience. Blending online instructional strategies with traditional classroom discussions

and lectures seems especially suitable to promote inquiry-based learning. The online learning

environment extends opportunities for exploration (interactions with content) and critical

discourse (interactions with peers and instructor). In a blended class, reflective asynchronous

text-based discussions can complement spontaneous verbal classroom discourse and lectures

providing a unique quality enhanced educational experience (Garrison, Kanuka, & Hawes,

2002).

In order to identify the variables that really make a difference in terms of

effectiveness of the various forms of instruction and to find out what type of blend is optimal

for the various disciplines, large-scale comparative studies of courses offered in all three

formats covering various subjects are necessary. The current study was designed to

investigate if there is a relationship between the form of instruction and its effectiveness. The

primary goal was to examine how interactions and the perception of these interactions vary

across face-to-face, blended, and entirely online classes, and how the quality and quantity of

these interactions might impact students academic performance, learning behavior, sense of

community, and their satisfaction with the overall learning experience. The relationship

between the form of instruction and students attitude toward subject, a possible indicator of

course effectiveness, was also investigated.

20
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of the current study was to determine whether or not a blended class will

produce different (and possibly better) results in terms of student perceptions of the overall

learning experience and student satisfaction than traditional face-to-face instruction or

entirely online learning. The two main goals of this study were (1) to compare the

effectiveness of face-to-face, online, and blended instruction, and (2) to examine the role of

interactions in the effectiveness of each educational method. The general hypothesis was that,

since blended instruction can combine the strengths of face-to-face and online learning, it has

the potential to maximize the effectiveness of both and to produce better results than either

alone. In addition, a better understanding of the role of interactions can help identify the areas

of instruction that should be rethought and redesigned when converting online or face-to-face

courses into blended formats.

Research Questions

The research questions focused on two problem areas. The first looked at the

differences among the three teaching methods in terms of learning outcomes and attitude

changes toward subject matter. The second research problem area focused on comparing the

different teaching methods in terms of the quantity of actual and perceived student-student,

student-instructor, and student-content interactions.

Research Problem 1:

21
 Research Question (1): In terms of effectiveness, can a blended class produce
different (and possibly better) results than a traditional lecture-based face-to-face or
an entirely online class?

Research Question (2): Does the method of instruction affect students attitude toward
the subject matter?

Research Problem 2:

Research Question (3): Is there a relationship between students actual online

interactions and academic performance?

Research Question (4): Is there a significant difference between blended and online
students in terms of their online interactions (number of emails, discussion postings,
Learning Management System sessions, hours spent in the Learning Management
System)?

Research Question (5): Is there a significant difference between online and blended
students in terms of their academic performance?

Research Question (6): Is there a relationship between students perceived interactions

and their level of satisfaction with their overall learning experience?

Research Question (7): Is there a relationship between class format and perceived
interactions?

Research Hypotheses

The general hypothesis of the study was that a typical, large-enrollment,

undergraduate blended class, where the amount and quality of interactions is optimal, will

produce more positive student perceptions of the overall learning experience, higher levels of

student satisfaction with the learning experience, and more positive attitudes toward the

subject matter than the other two methods of instruction.

22
Null Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis (1): In terms of effectiveness, there is no difference between a blended class,
a traditional lecture-based face-to-face class, and an entirely online class.

Null Hypothesis (2): In terms of attitude toward subject matter, there is no difference between
a blended class, a traditional lecture-based face-to-face class, and an entirely online class.

Null Hypothesis (3): There is no relationship between students actual online interactions and
their academic performance.

Null Hypothesis (4): There is no difference between online and blended classes in terms of
online interactions.

Null Hypothesis (5): There is no difference between online and blended students in terms of
their academic performance.

Null Hypothesis (6): There is no relationship between perceived interactions and the level of
satisfaction with the learning experience.

Null Hypothesis (7): There is no relationship between class format and perceived
interactions.

Population and Sample

The general population of the study was the undergraduate students enrolled at the

University of North Texas. The target population was the students enrolled in the face-to-

face, online, and blended sections of five large-enrollment undergraduate courses:

Introduction to Communication, U.S. History Until 1865, Principles of Language Study,

Music Appreciation, and Principles of Nutrition.

Participation in this study was voluntary. Students in the traditional classroom settings

completed paper surveys, while those taking online or blended classes used online

questionnaires. Students were asked to participate in the study by their instructors, two of

whom rewarded participation with extra credit. A total of 633 students filled out the end-of

23
semester course evaluation survey. A total of 482 students responded to the pre-test, and 569

students participated in the post-test of the Attitude Toward Subject survey.

Class Descriptions

The University of North Texas started the first phase of its Blended Learning Project,

Phase I (BL I) in fall 2005. Five faculty members volunteered to develop blended courses for

high enrollment undergraduate courses in communication, history, music, nutrition, and

linguistics.

COMM1010 Introduction to Communication

The communication blended course was an introductory course for undergraduate

students. The original face-to-face section was offered in a large lecture/recitation format

with approximately 200 students enrolled in a section attending one 50-minute lecture with

the course director and two 50-minute recitations with his/her teaching assistant.

The course content and structure of the online and blended sections were designed to

mirror the face-to-face section. The course material was presented online for both the online

and blended sections. Each learning module included interactive features, such as quizzes and

self-tests, and students were required to participate in online discussions using the

asynchronous discussion forums. Students completing the online version of the course were

required to record two presentations in front of a small group of at least three people and

submit those electronically. Students enrolled in the blended section were required to perform

their speeches in front of the class during the face-to-face meetings.

The blended class had five required in-class meetings during the semester. The first

meeting was focused on introductions and discussing the syllabus, the second, third and

24
fourth meetings were designated to student presentations (one for introductory speeches and

two for persuasive speeches), and the final meeting was an in-class final exam.

Because of the large number of enrollment, each class format was further divided into

three sections. The faculty member worked closely with three experienced teaching assistants

in developing and teaching the course. Each teaching assistant was responsible for a face-to-

face, an online, and a blended (approximately 70% online) version of the course. The online

and blended courses included 30 students. Enrollment for face-to-face recitation was set at 27

students per recitation.

The course requirements included two exams (40% of the final grade), two

presentations (25%), an analytical paper (15%) and class participation (20%). Class

participation included several activities such as an experimental learning activity, four

quizzes, as well as discussion forum and online activities. Participation in the activities was

graded holistically twice during the semester after the exams.

HIST2610 U.S. History Until 1865

The history course (HIST2610 U.S. History Until 1865) had 125 students in each

section. The online and blended sections had identical online content and course structure.

Blended and online sections were designed to be built on case studies and required no

textbook. All the necessary material was available within the learning management system

(LMS) in the form of course materials, linked documents, Web pages, and electronic library

pages. While the students in the online sections worked in small groups on the case studies

using online communication tools, the blended section met every other week in groups of 25

students to discuss the case studies. In the online and blended sections, students were required

to reflect on each unit at its conclusion and cumulatively at the end of the semester on a

discussion board linking the content material with the counterfactual simulated case studies.

25
The face-to-face section had the format of a traditional lecture and met weekly. Students were

graded based on four exams that included multiple-choice, identification, and essay

questions.

In the online and blended sections, the final grade was primarily based on the four

papers associated with the large counter-factual simulation case studies (60%). Students were

also required to take weekly multiple-choice quizzes on basic facts and chronology (10%).

Students were required to retake each quiz until they scored at least 70% prior to moving on

to the next weeks material. The midterm and final exams (15% of the final grade each) were

created directly from the weekly mastery quizzes and consisted entirely of multiple-choice

questions.

The case studies were graded based on specific grading rubrics that guided the

students on how their grades were determined. Each case study consisted of a writing part as

well as a discussion component and they were graded overall on three levels of solution:

description, analysis, and synthesis level.

LING3060 Principles of Language Study

The blended and online sections of the linguistics course also had identical online

versions. The seven core topics of the course were presented entirely online; there was no

additional required textbook. The blended section met eight times during the semester. In

addition to the required class meetings, there were five optional class meetings scheduled

with the teaching assistant. There was a major assignment for each topic (25% of the final

grade altogether). A few topics included quizzes (25%), and four of them ended with tests

(25%). Students were also graded on their discussion postings with an overall grade (15%)

for the quality of their postings at the end of the semester. In addition, the course assessments

included a short written project and a comprehensive final exam (10%). Students enrolled in

26
the blended course had to take all the assessments online, and they were required to attend in-

class meetings with prepared assignments for discussion.

MUMH2040 Music Appreciation

The music appreciation course was only offered in a blended format during the fall

2005 and spring 2006 semesters, but student tracking data for an entirely online version from

spring 2005 was made available for the researcher. Traditional face-to-face music

appreciation courses usually have 230 students per class. In an in-class format, only lectures

are possible because of large enrollment and large auditorium. The lecture format generally

does not allow interactions between students and instructor.

For the blended class, the first class meeting was scheduled for the entire class to

orient the students with the format of the course and the basic course objectives. After this

introductory meeting, students were assigned to small discussion groups of 25 students each

and had five group meetings during the semester. The small discussion groups addressed

concepts that had been introduced online, practiced identifying listening selections, and

discussed personal responses to music. These small group meetings incorporated listening

exercises to popular music and classical music as well as provided students with

opportunities to ask questions that they might have been hesitant to ask in a large lecture

setting. The focus on experiential learning (i.e., experiencing music in the classroom), both

through guided listening and through guest performers, allowed the students become more

comfortable with further listening outside of the classroom. Small discussion groups were

designed to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills by working through task

assignments together.

The entire class met as a large group to review for exams and to cover a few topics

that seemed appropriate for the large lecture setting. Large lecture meetings also involved live

27
music performances and guest speakers. Exams were administered in class, because of the

large amount of listening identification that was involved with each exam.

A textbook and a compact disc (CD) set were required in addition to the online

content. Online lessons were designed to supplement the required textbook. By the end of a

lesson, students were required to have read the assigned pages from the textbook and listened

to the corresponding music from the CD set.

SMHM1450 Principles of Nutrition

The various sections of the nutrition class had similar designs and course

requirements. Online and blended students were required to take exams online in a computer

lab, whereas students in the face-to-face sections took paper-pencil exams. One major

difference between the blended and face-to-face students was that students in the blended

sections completed their investigative reports as a team in class during the scheduled class

meetings, while students enrolled in the face-to-face lecture class were required to complete

their investigative reports independently. The blended sections had three class meetings to

complete projects and three additional meetings to take exams. Although the exams were

online, students were required to take them in a computer lab during set times. Due to the

manner in which the blended class was listed in the course schedule, some of the students

were confused about the class format, and many believed that they would be attending

weekly face-to-face lectures. This misalignment of expectations seemed to be an issue

throughout the semester and may have affected research results. Students who accidentally

signed up for blended sections were allowed to attend face-to-face lectures, but still needed to

take exams online and work on their projects during the regular small-group meetings of the

blended sections.

28
 Data Collection and Instrumentation

In fall 2005, the University of North Texas offered five blended undergraduate

courses (COMM1010 Introduction to Communication, HIST2610 U.S. History Until 1865,

LING3060 Principles of Language Study, MUMH2040 Music Appreciation, and

SMHM1450 Principles of Nutrition) parallel with their face-to-face and online sections. An

effort was made to ensure that the same instructors would teach all three sections of each

course and all course requirements would be identical for the various sections of each course.

During the fall 2005, spring 2006, and summer 2006 semesters two sets of surveys

were administered among the students enrolled in these courses, and two sets of interviews

were conducted with the faculty members involved in the project. Qualitative data was

collected by observing the online classes and the monthly blended faculty meetings. Student

online activity data was collected by using the student tracking tool of the learning

management system (LMS).

Students in the traditional classroom were asked to fill out paper surveys, while online

and blended students were asked to complete the online versions of the surveys. Changes in

students attitude toward the subject matter were measured with the Attitude Toward Subject

instrument (Appendix A). This two-part survey included a pre-test during the second week of

the semester and a post-test during the week before the final exams.

The end-of-semester course evaluation survey (Appendix B) was administered during

the last week of the semester, before finals week. This survey collected demographic data and

information on students overall satisfaction with the learning experience. Two open-ended

questions were designed to elicit information on the positive and negative aspects of the

course. The online version included the Perception of Interactions instrument to investigate

how blended and online students perceived the quality and quantity of their interactions as

compared to a traditional face-to-face class.

29
Attitude Toward Subject Instrument

Changes in students attitude toward subject were measured by comparing results of

pre- and post-course surveys using the Attitude Toward Subject instrument, a modified

version of the Survey of Attitudes Toward Statistics (Schau et al., 1995). Since the original

instrument was created to measure attitude toward statistics specifically, the statements in the

Attitude Toward Subject instrument were converted into more general, not subject-specific

statements.

The instrument (Appendix A) includes four subscales: affect, cognitive competence,

value, and difficulty. The Affect subscale measures positive and negative feelings concerning

the subject matter of the course. The Cognitive Competence subscale collects information on

attitudes about intellectual knowledge and skills when applied to a specific subject. Value

refers to attitudes about the usefulness, relevance, and worth of the subject matter in personal

and professional life. Difficulty measures attitudes about the perceived difficulty of the

subject. All the Cronbach alpha values on the original instrument were around .80 with the

exception of .64 for males in the difficulty subscale (Appendix F).

End-of-Semester Course Evaluation Survey: Perception of Interactions Instrument

Student online interaction data was collected using the LMS student tracking tool,

while students perceived interactions were measured by a slightly modified version of

Piccianos (2002) Perception of Interactions instrument. This instrument was part of the end-

of-semester course evaluation survey (Appendix B), which was also designed to generate

feedback from the students about their satisfaction with the learning experience.

30
Interviews with Faculty

Semi-structured interviews (Appendix D) were conducted with the blended faculty

and their teaching assistant mid-semester and at the end of the semesters. The interviews

focused on issues such as student and instructor workload, technical challenges, satisfaction

with support and instructional technology, perceptions of student learning as well as

perceptions of student-student and student-instructor interactions in their blended, online, and

face-to-face sections.

Data Analysis

The study employed quantitative as well as qualitative data analysis techniques.

Students attitude toward subject was measured on four subscales. A 7-point response scale

was used to calculate an overall attitude score for each respondent. Since higher scores are

supposed to indicate more positive attitudes, responses to Questions 6-12, 14, 16, and 19-21

(see Appendix A) needed to be reversed before the total score could be calculated. Then the

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences (p < .05) in attitude toward

subject between face-to-face, online, and blended students.

Students perceived interactions were measured by the Perception of Interactions

(Picciano, 2002) instrument as part of the end-of-semester course evaluation survey

(Appendix B). Blended and online students were presented 9 statements on the quality and

quantity of their interactions with their peers and instructor and they were asked to evaluate

these statements in comparison to traditional classroom instruction on the following 5-point

scale: 1 = increased; 2 = somewhat increased; 3 = no change; 4 = somewhat decreased; 5 =

decreased. In this instrument, lower scores corresponded to more increased interactions.

After the perception of interaction scores were calculated, the mean differences between

online and blended students were tested using the Independent Samples t-test. The

31
relationship between perceived interactions and students overall course ratings was tested

with the Chi Square Test of Independence tool.

The qualitative data collected during faculty interviews and through open-ended

questions of the end-of-semester course evaluation survey were analyzed inductively (Patton,

2002). After identifying major categories, student responses were coded and counted to

identify components of the courses that contributed to their success as well as features that

needed to be changed or improved.

Summary and Limitations of the Study

Data collection included student surveys with Likert-type scales and open-ended

questions, final score information, student online activity data recorded by the student

tracking tool of the learning management system, faculty phone interviews, and observations

of monthly faculty meetings. In order to gain a more complete picture of the blended learning

experience, a methodological triangulation was used. The attitude and course evaluation

surveys provided both qualitative and quantitative data about students perceptions of the

learning experience. Faculty members participating in the blended project were interviewed

twice during each semester about their perceptions of student learning and the challenges

they had to face while teaching the blended courses. The quantitative data collected in the

student surveys was compared to final course scores and, in the case of online and blended

classes, to students actual activity within the online environment. The qualitative data on

student perceptions of the classes was compared to faculty perceptions of student

performance and activity.

Some study limitations were identified as early as the planning phase of the project.

Originally, the five blended courses (COMM1010 Introduction to Communication,

HIST2610 U.S. History Until 1865, LING3060 Principles of Language Study, MUMH2040

32
Music Appreciation, and SMHM1450 Principles of Nutrition) were going to be offered at the

University of North Texas parallel with their face-to-face and online section. The same

instructors were expected to teach all three sections of each course, and, for each course, all

course requirements and text were expected to be the same. However, because of certain

administrative and workload issues, not all sections of the courses were offered every

semester at UNT and not all sections of the courses were taught by the same instructors.

Comparable sections and comparable data for the missing sections of each course

were used. In addition, while the structure, content, and course requirements of the online and

blended were close to identical for each course, face-to-face sections were significantly

different especially in terms of how the course content was presented.

Another limitation of the study was related to the sample. In addition to using cluster

sampling of existing class sections, only volunteering students participated in the study, so

the sample of the study was not random. It is also possible that only those who felt strongly

about their learning experience participated in the surveys. Two instructors agreed to reward

students with extra credit for their participation in the study.

The University of North Texas also introduced a new version of the learning

management system (WebCT Vista) at the beginning of the first phase of the Blended

Project, which reportedly increased both the faculty and student workload in terms of

learning to navigate the new system. Technical problems were quite frequent especially

during the first semester of the study and they affected student perceptions of the overall

learning experience.

33
 CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter presents the data analysis procedures and results for the seven research

questions of the study. The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of blended,

online, and traditional face-to-face instruction and examine if interactions impact the

effectiveness of these teaching methods. The effectiveness of the class format was measured

by students perceived learning experience, as well as changes in their attitude toward the

subject. Changes in students attitude toward subject were measured by comparing results of

pre- and post-course surveys using the Attitude Toward Subject instrument (Appendix A), a

modified version of the Survey of Attitudes Toward Statistics (Schau et al., 1995). Student

online interaction data was collected using the student tracking tool of the learning

management system, while students perceived interactions were measured by a modified

version of the Perception of Interactions instrument (Picciano, 2002), which was part of the

end-of-semester course evaluation survey (Appendix B).

Organization of Data Analysis

Data collection of the study involved both quantitative and qualitative data. The first

part of this section presents the descriptive characteristics of the sample and a description of

the classes involved in the first phase of the Blended Project. The second part discusses the

quantitative data analysis and the results of these procedures in terms of the research

questions and hypothesis of the study as presented in Chapter 3. The last part of this section

34
presents the qualitative data analysis and results including summaries of student and faculty

experiences of the blended learning experience.

Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents

Demographic data was collected as part of the end-of-semester course evaluation

survey (Appendix B). The purpose of the demographic data collection was to determine if

there were any significant differences between the various class sections in terms of

demographics, and to identify any possible extraneous variables that might threaten the

validity of the study. Altogether 784 students (154 face-to-face, 337 online, and 293 blended)

participated in the end-of-semester survey. The majority (57.9%) of online students was

between 21 and 30 years old, while most students in the blended (64.5%) and face-to-face

(75.9%) sections were under 20 years old. About two thirds (70.5% online and 66.6%

blended) of the students were female in each section and around 70% (69.3% online and

74.13% blended) rated their computer expertise as intermediate. The ratings on the ease

use of the learning management system were almost identical in both sections with about

50% of the students finding it easy and about 30% finding it fairly easy. In terms of

geographic distribution, the majority of students (62.9% online and 73.12% blended) lived

within 10 miles from the UNT Denton campus.

In all sections, an overwhelming majority of the students (76.6% online, 86%

blended, 79% face-to-face) decided to take the course primarily to fulfill a general education

requirement, and about 40% of them needed the course as a requirement for their specific

major. The course being offered in that particular format and in that particular semester

seemed to be an issue only for online students: 60.7% of them decided to take the course

because it was offered entirely online, and 26.9% of them took the course because it was

offered during that semester. Only 0.3% of the blended students decided to take the course

because of the format and only 2.8% took the course because it was offered in that semester.

35
The interest in the subject matter was moderately important for students in all sections

(14.5% online and 22.1% blended). The instructors reputation was a negligible factor in all

sections (2.7% online, 3.73% blended, and 3.57% face-to-face).

On average, the majority of the students (59.5% online and 67.97% blended) spent

between 1-5 hours online in the course on a weekly basis. The higher percentage of blended

students suggests that the face-to-face meetings cut down on the time spent online. However,

the number of weekly logins to the course and the number of weekly postings were almost

identical. The largest percentage of both sections (21% online and 28.16% blended) reported

that they logged in to the course approximately three times a week and on average over 70%

of students in each section posted only once a week.

Overall, the student sample in the blended and face-to-face sections seemed rather

homogeneous in terms of age, location, and computer expertise. The students in the online

sections, however, were older and lived further away from the UNT Denton campus. These

factors were considered as extraneous variables and were expected not to affect student

satisfaction with the overall learning experience and the attitude change toward the subject

matter by the end of the semester.

Research Questions and Associated Hypotheses

The research questions focused on two problem areas. The first looked at the

differences between the three teaching methods in terms of student perceptions of the overall

learning experience and student attitude changes toward subject matter. The second research

problem area focused on comparing the different teaching methods in terms of the quality and

quantity of actual and perceived student-student, student-instructor, and student-content

interactions.

36
 The general hypothesis of the study was that a typical, large-enrollment,

undergraduate blended class, where the amount and quality of interactions is optimal, will

produce a more positive perception of the overall learning experience, higher levels of

student satisfaction with the learning experience, and more positive attitudes toward the

subject matter than the other two methods of instruction.

Research Problem 1:

Research Question (1): In terms of effectiveness, can a blended class produce

different (and possibly better) results than a traditional lecture-based face-to-face or

an entirely online class?

Null Hypothesis (1): In terms of effectiveness, there is no difference between a

blended class, a traditional lecture-based face-to-face class, and an entirely online

class.

Effectiveness was measured by student perceptions of the overall learning experience.

As part of the end-of-semester course evaluation survey (Appendix B), students were asked

to rate their learning experience on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) and to indicate if

they considered their educational experience successful or unsuccessful and why. Around

70% of both online and blended students rated their learning experience successful (Table 1).

The distribution of the ratings was also almost identical in the online (72.4%) and blended

(70.27%) sections. Face-to-face sections were considered successful by more than 90% of the

students.

37
Table 1

Perceived Course Success Rates

Online Number of Blended Number of Face- Number of

Respondents Respondents to-Face Respondents

Successful 72.4% 226 70.27% 194 94.41% 186

Not 27.6% 86 29.73% 82 5.58% 11

successful

The distribution of the ratings of the learning experience (Table 2) on a scale of 1-5

was also almost identical in the online and blended sections. The face-to-face sections,

however, scored much higher.

Table 2

Student Ratings of the Learning Experience

Online Number of Blended Number of Face- Number of

Respondents Respondents to-Face Respondents

Poor 14.1% 44 17.75% 49 1.52% 3

Satisfactory 22.5% 70 20.68% 57 10.65% 21

Good 29.9% 93 32.97% 91 16.24% 32

Very Good 24.8% 77 20.28% 56 34.01% 67

Excellent 8.7% 27 8.30% 23 37.56% 74

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences (p < .05) in

overall ratings of the various class formats. The Bonferroni test of multiple comparisons

revealed that there was a significant difference (p < .05) between the face-to-face and the

other two (online and blended) sections. While the mean scores for the overall course ratings

38
were similar in the online (mean=2.91) and blended (mean=2.81) sections, the mean for the

face-to-face sections was significantly higher (mean=3.59) indicating an overall higher

satisfaction with the learning experience in a traditional lecture-based learning environment

(Table 3).

Table 3

Multiple Comparisons of Course Ratings

Course 95% Confidence

Evaluation Interval for Mean
N Mean Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Bound Bound
1 276 2.81 1.192 .072 2.67 2.95 1 5
2 311 2.91 1.176 .067 2.78 3.04 1 5
3 154 3.59 1.070 .086 3.42 3.76 1 5
Total 741 3.01 1.197 .044 2.93 3.10 1 5
(Course Codes: 1-Blended, 2-Online, 3-Face-to-Face)

ANOVA

Course Evaluation Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
Between Groups 66.131 2 33.066 24.532 .000
Within Groups 994.706 738 1.348
Total 1060.837 740

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Course Mean 95% Confidence

Evaluation Difference Interval
(I) Class Format (J) Class (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
Format Bound Bound
1 2 -.105 .096 .820 -.34 .13
3 -.783* .117 .000 -1.06 -.50
2 1 .105 .096 .820 -.13 .34
3 -.678* .114 .000 -.95 -.40
3 1 .783* .117 .000 .50 1.06
2 .678* .114 .000 .40 .95
(Course Codes: 1-Blended, 2-Online, 3-Face-to-Face)

39
 Qualitative data was also collected regarding student perceptions of the learning

experience and faculty perceptions of the effectiveness of each class format. The learning

experience of the blended faculty and students are discussed in the second part of the chapter

as part of the qualitative results.

Research Question (2): Does the method of instruction affect students attitude toward

the subject matter?

Null Hypothesis (2): In terms of attitude toward subject matter, there is no difference

between a blended class, a traditional lecture-based face-to-face class, and an entirely

online class.

Attitude toward the subject matter was measured by the Attitude Toward Subject

survey (Appendix A), a modified version of the Survey of Attitudes Toward Statistics (Schau

et al., 1995). The goal was to compare average attitude scores of students enrolled in blended,

online, and face-to-face sections of undergraduate courses. Students in all sections were given

a pretest at the beginning of the semester and a posttest at the end of the semester. Altogether,

578 students responded to the pre-tests (Table 5) and 655 students participated in the post-test

(Table 6). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences (p < .05) in

attitude changes toward subject. Based on the variability of the data (Table 4), the null

hypothesis (that the three independent populations means are equal) was rejected.

40
Table 4

Differences in Attitude Changes Toward Subject

AttitudeScore Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

ANOVA
Between Groups 34526.210 2 17263.105 38.188 .000
Within Groups 294738.8 652 452.053
Total 329265.0 654

Attitude 95% Confidence

Score Interval for Mean
Pre- N Mean Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimum Maximum
Course Deviation Error Bound Bound
1 87 105.03 16.380 1.756 101.54 108.53 57 136
2 243 101.81 18.650 1.196 99.45 104.16 39 147
3 248 99.35 20.779 1.319 96.75 101.95 36 139
Total 578 101.24 19.353 .805 99.66 102.82 36 147
(Course Codes: 1-Blended, 2-Online, 3-Face-to-Face)

Attitude 95% Confidence

Score Interval for Mean
Post-Course N Mean Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Bound Bound
1 121 98.12 19.002 1.727 94.70 101.54 33 143
2 303 97.36 21.282 1.223 94.95 99.77 31 147
3 231 112.76 22.325 1.469 109.87 115.66 44 152
Total 655 102.93 22.438 .877 101.21 104.65 31 152
(Course Codes: 1-Blended, 2-Online, 3-Face-to-Face)

While the pre-test (Table 5) results showed no significant difference between the

teaching formats in terms of the average attitude scores (AS), the post-test multiple

comparison results (Table 6) revealed that in the end of the semester those taking face-to-face

classes had significantly higher attitude score (AS mean=112.76) than those enrolled in

online (AS mean=97.36) or blended (AS mean=98.12) sections.

41
Table 5

Attitude Toward Subject Pre-Test Results

Dependent Variable: Attitude Score Mean 95% Confidence

(Pre-Test) Difference Interval
(I) Class Format (J) Class (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
Format Bound Bound
1 2 3.228 2.410 .543 -2.56 9.01
3 5.684 2.403 .055 -.09 11.45
2 1 -3.228 2.410 .543 -9.01 2.56
3 2.456 1.741 .477 -1.72 6.64
3 1 -5.684 2.403 .055 -11.45 .09
2 -2.456 1.741 .477 -6.64 1.72
(Course Codes: 1-Blended, 2-Online, 3-Face-to-Face)

110

107.5
95% CI AttitudeScore

105

102.5

100

97.5

Figure 2. Pre-test confidence intervals for attitude scores.

(The x axis shows the confidence intervals for Blended, Online, and Face-to-Face classes.)

42
Table 6

Attitude Toward Subject Post-Test Results

Dependent Variable: Attitude Score Mean 95% Confidence

(Post-Test) Difference Interval
(I) Class Format (J) Class (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Upper
Format Bound Bound
1 2 .764 2.286 1.000 -4.72 6.25
3 -14.638* 2.386 .000 -20.36 -8.91
2 1 -.764 2.286 1.000 -6.25 4.72
3 -15.402* 1.857 .000 -19.86 -10.94
3 1 14.638* 2.386 .000 8.91 20.36
2 15.402* 1.857 .000 10.94 19.86
(Course Codes: 1-Blended, 2-Online, 3-Face-to-Face)

115

110
95% CI AttitudeScore

105

100

95

Figure 3. Post-test confidence intervals for attitude scores.

(The x axis shows the confidence intervals for Blended, Online, and Face-to-Face classes.)

43
Research Problem 2:

Research Question (3): Is there a relationship between students actual online

interactions and academic performance?

Null Hypothesis (3): There is no relationship between students actual online

interactions and academic performance.

This research question focused on the possible differences between online behavior of

blended and online students. The online activity data collected by the student tracking feature

of the learning management system was used to measure students actual interactions. Both

tracking information and final course scores were only available for 149 blended and 154

online students. Academic performance was measured by final scores (on a scale of 1-100).

The average final score for was almost 7 points (and almost a letter grade) higher for the

blended students than for the online student (74.03 for blended and 67.58 for online students).

On average, as it was expected, blended students spent less time online. Although, the

average number of online sessions during the semester was almost identical for both sections

(71 for the blended and 80 for the online students), on average blended students spent 21

hours whereas online students spent 27.7 hours in the learning management system. As

regards the online communication activities, on average, blended students sent 5.2 emails and

posted 16 times to the discussion topics, while online students sent 6.8 emails and posted 23

times to the discussion topics during a semester.

The Pearsons r correlation coefficient was calculated for the relationship between the

final scores (the measure of academic performance on a scale of 1-100) and the following

variables measuring actual online interactions:

Number of postings (measure of student-student, student-teacher interactions);

44
 Number of emails (measure of student-student, student-teacher interactions);

Number of online sessions (measure of student-interface interactions);

Time spent online (in hours) (measure of student-interface interactions).

Table 7

Pearsons r for the Relationship Between Final Scores and Online Activity

Grade No. of Hours Mail Read Mail Discussion Discussion

Score Sessions Posted Read Posted

Grade Pearson 1 .495(**) .458(**) .376(**) .218(**) .177(**) .472(**)

Score Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .001 .002 .000

tailed)

N 304 304 304 301 249 300 296

(table continues)

45
Table 7 (continued).
Grade No. of Hours Mail Mail Discussion Discussion
Score Sessions Read Posted Read Posted

No. of Pearson .495(**) 1 .616(**) .491(**) .458(**) .515(**) .705(**)

Sessions Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 304 304 304 301 249 300 296

Hours Pearson .458(**) .616(**) 1 .512(**) .593(**) .372(**) .604(**)

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 304 304 304 301 249 300 296

Mail Pearson .376(**) .491(**) .512(**) 1 .593(**) .280(**) .302(**)

Read Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 301 301 301 301 249 298 294

Mail Pearson .218(**) .458(**) .593(**) .593(**) 1 .345(**) .435(**)

Posted Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 249 249 249 249 249 248 245

Discuss. Pearson .177(**) .515(**) .372(**) .280(**) .345(**) 1 .368(**)

Read Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 300 300 300 298 248 300 295

Discuss. Pearson .472(**) .705(**) .604(**) .302(**) .435(**) .368(**) 1

Posted Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 296 296 296 294 245 295 296

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

In the online classes, as shown in Table 8, the Pearsons r indicated a moderate

positive correlation between final scores and number of online sessions (.538), number of

hours spent online (.535), and the number of discussion postings (.658). Whereas, there was

little if any correlation between final scores and number of discussion postings read (.239)

and email sent (.283). There was a low positive relationship between final scores and emails

read (.456).

46
Table 8

Pearsons r for the Relationship Between Final Scores and Online Activity in Online Sections

GradeScore NoSessions Hours MailRead MailPosted DiscRead DiscPosted

GradeScore Pearson
1 .538(**) .535(**) .456(**) .283(**) .239(**) .658(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .002 .003 .000
N 154 154 154 152 121 152 151
NoSessions Pearson
.538(**) 1 .621(**) .634(**) .475(**) .566(**) .739(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 154 154 154 152 121 152 151
Hours Pearson
.535(**) .621(**) 1 .571(**) .616(**) .365(**) .571(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 154 154 154 152 121 152 151
MailRead Pearson
.456(**) .634(**) .571(**) 1 .623(**) .337(**) .478(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 152 152 152 152 121 150 149
MailPosted Pearson
.283(**) .475(**) .616(**) .623(**) 1 .368(**) .443(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 121 121 121 121 121 120 119
DiscRead Pearson
.239(**) .566(**) .365(**) .337(**) .368(**) 1 .348(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 152 152 152 150 120 152 151
DiscPosted Pearson
.658(**) .739(**) .571(**) .478(**) .443(**) .348(**) 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 151 151 151 149 119 151 151
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

In the blended classes, as shown in Table 9, there was a low positive correlation

between final scores and the number of online sessions (.475) and number of hours spent

online (.499).

47
Table 9

Pearsons r the Relationship Between Final Scores and Online Activity in Blended Sections

GradeScore NoSessions Hours MailRead MailPosted DiscRead DiscPosted

GradeScore Pearson
1 .475(**) .499(**) .336(**) .196(*) .186(*) .387(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .027 .023 .000
N 150 150 150 149 128 148 145
NoSessions Pearson
.475(**) 1 .654(**) .189(*) .417(**) .488(**) .692(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .021 .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 149 128 148 145
Hours Pearson
.499(**) .654(**) 1 .285(**) .449(**) .338(**) .651(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 149 128 148 145
MailRead Pearson
.336(**) .189(*) .285(**) 1 .479(**) -.061 -.195(*)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .021 .000 .000 .462 .019
N 149 149 149 149 128 148 145
MailPosted Pearson
.196(*) .417(**) .449(**) .479(**) 1 .127 .357(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .027 .000 .000 .000 .155 .000
N 128 128 128 128 128 128 126
DiscRead Pearson
.186(*) .488(**) .338(**) -.061 .127 1 .476(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .023 .000 .000 .462 .155 .000
N 148 148 148 148 128 148 144
DiscPosted Pearson
.387(**) .692(**) .651(**) -.195(*) .357(**) .476(**) 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .019 .000 .000
N 145 145 145 145 126 144 145
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

There seemed to be an even lower positive correlation between final scores and the number

of discussion postings (.387) and the number of emails read (.336). There was little if any

correlation between final scores and emails sent and number of discussion postings read.

In summary, while there appears to be no correlation between final scores and the

number of emails sent or discussion postings read, there is a low positive correlation between

final scores and number of discussion postings (.472), number of online sessions (.495) and

the amount of time spent online (.458). The difference between the Pearsons r values for the

correlations between final scores and the number of discussion postings shows the biggest

48
difference in terms of interactions between blended and online students. There seems to be a

nearly high correlation between final scores and discussion postings in the online classes

(.658), whereas the same correlation in the blended classes is low (.387).

Research Question (4): Is there a significant difference between blended and online

students in terms of their online interactions (number of emails, discussion postings,

Learning Management System sessions, hours spent in the Learning Management

System)?

Null Hypothesis (4): There is no difference between online and blended classes in

terms of online interactions (the number of online sessions, number of discussion

postings, number of emails, and the amount of time spent online).

The Independent Samples t-test was used to examine if there is a significant

difference between blended and online students in terms of their online interactions and their

academic performance. The two class formats were compared based on the following

variables:

Number of postings (measure of student-student, student-teacher interactions);

Number of emails (measure of student-student, student-teacher interactions);

Number of online sessions (measure of student-interface interactions);

Time spent online (in hours) (measure of student-interface interactions).

The group statistics information (Table 10), where 1 indicates blended and 2 indicates

online class interactions, shows that the mean of final scores is higher in the blended sections

(mean=73.6) than in the online sections (mean=66.5). However, the means for all measures

of online interactions (number of online sessions, hours spent online, number of emails read

49
and sent, and the number of discussion posts read and posted) are lower for the blended

sections. The Independent t-test was used to find out if these differences between the online

and blended sections were statistically significant in the population. The t scores in Table 11

show that while there is a significant difference between blended and online sections in terms

of final scores, there seems to be no significant difference between online and blended

students in terms of their online interactions.

Table 10

Group Statistics for Final Scores in Online and Blended Sections

Std.
Std. Error
ClassFormat N Mean Deviation Mean
GradeScore 1 149 73.6028 21.06826 1.72598
2 154 66.5053 23.16200 1.86645
NoSessions 1 149 92.3356 60.81881 4.98247
2 154 99.7987 80.40538 6.47925
Hours 1 149 29.44 16.305 1.336
2 154 39.65 33.421 2.693
MailRead 1 149 41.7315 20.59901 1.68754
2 152 49.0789 31.63210 2.56570
MailPosted 1 128 6.6641 7.33268 .64812
2 121 9.7355 14.61436 1.32858
DiscRead 1 2271.74 317.049
148 3857.07020
32 22
2 5283.34 14694.4037 1191.87
152
87 0 353
DiscPosted 1 145 18.8552 15.60670 1.29607
2 151 30.7483 23.03569 1.87462

Research Question (5): Is there a significant difference between blended and online

students in terms of their academic performance (final scores)?

Null Hypothesis (5): There is no difference between online and blended students in

terms of their academic performance.

50
 The Independent Samples t-test was used to examine if there is a significant

difference between blended and online students in terms of their academic performance based

on their final scores in the class. Since the t value (2.788) exceeded the critical value (1.96 for

when df = 301), the null hypothesis was rejected. Only 0.6% of the time could we expect to

see a sample difference of 7.09 or larger. If the null hypothesis was true, the observed results

were unusual. The Independent t-test results (Table 11) reveal that while there is no

difference between blended and online sections in the number of online interactions, there is

a significant difference between the final scores of online and blended students with the

blended students achieving a mean that was 7.09 points greater than their online only

counterparts.

Table 11

Independent t-Test Results for Final Scores and Online Interactions (Online and Blended)

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances or Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Sig.
(2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T Df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Grade Equal
Score variances 2.087 .150 2.788 301 .006 7.09749 2.54615 2.08699 12.10800
assumed
Equal
variances
2.792 299.867 .006 7.09749 2.54217 2.09474 12.10025
not
assumed
No. of Equal
Sessions variances 6.881 .009 -.909 301 .364 -7.46313 8.21039 -23.62016 8.69389
assumed
Equal
variances
-.913 284.578 .362 -7.46313 8.17348 -23.55127 8.62501
not
assumed
Hours Equal
-
variances 16.045 .000 301 .001 -10.213 3.037 -16.189 -4.237
3.363
assumed
Equal
variances -
223.552 .001 -10.213 3.006 -16.137 -4.289
not 3.397
assumed
(table continues)

51
 Table 11 (continued).
Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig.
Difference
(2-
tailed Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T Df ) Difference Difference Lower Upper
MailRead Equal
-
variance 19.95 .00
2.38 299 .018 -7.34740 3.08337 -13.41527 -1.27954
s 7 0
3
assumed
Equal
-
variance 260.22
2.39 .017 -7.34740 3.07093 -13.39444 -1.30037
s not 0
3
assumed
MailPoste Equal
-
d variance 18.25 .00
2.11 247 .036 -3.07147 1.45350 -5.93431 -.20864
s 6 0
3
assumed
Equal
-
variance 174.57
2.07 .039 -3.07147 1.47824 -5.98899 -.15396
s not 0
8
assumed
DiscRead Equal
- - - -
variance 14.21 .00 1247.7784
2.41 298 .016 3011.6054 5467.1791 556.0317
s 9 0 2
4 4 0 8
assumed
Equal
- - - -
variance 172.24 1233.3218
2.44 .016 3011.6054 5445.9763 577.2345
s not 0 2
2 4 6 2
assumed
DiscPosted Equal
-
variance 14.26 .00
5.17 294 .000 -11.89317 2.29628 -16.41241 -7.37394
s 3 0
9
assumed
Equal
-
variance 264.67
5.21 .000 -11.89317 2.27903 -16.38051 -7.40584
s not 8
9
assumed

Research Question (6): Is there a relationship between students perceived interactions

and their level of satisfaction with their overall learning experience?

Null Hypothesis (6): There is no relationship between perceived interactions and the

level of satisfaction with the learning experience.

Perceived interactions were measured by using a modified version of Piccianos

(2002) Perceptions of Interactions instrument as part of the end-of-semester course evaluation

52
survey (Appendix B). Blended and online students were asked to evaluate their interactions

with their peers, instructors, and the course content in comparison to traditional classroom

instruction on a scale from 1 (increased) to 5 (decreased). Satisfaction with the learning

experience was measured on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Based on the results of the

Chi Square Test of Independence (Tables 12.1 and 12.2), the null hypothesis was rejected.

Perceived interactions and the level of satisfaction with the overall educational experience do

not seem to be independent. It appears that those who rated their overall educational

experience excellent perceived their interactions increased as compared to traditional

classroom instruction, whereas those who rated their educational experience as poor

perceived that their interactions decreased as compared to traditional classroom instruction.

Table 12.1

Chi Square Test of Independence Crosstabulations for Students Perceived Interactions vs.
Their Overall Satisfaction with the Learning Experience: Perceived Amount of Student-
Student Interactions vs. Student Satisfaction

Course Evaluation

1 2 3 4 5 Total

Amount 1 Count 0 8 18 21 19 66

Of Student - Expected Count 10.5 14.3 20.7 15.0 5.6 66.0

Student % within .0% 12.1% 27.3% 31.8% 28.8% 100.0%

Interaction Amount of
Interaction

Std. Residual -3.2 -1.7 -.6 1.6 5.6

2 Count 13 25 36 49 12 135

Expected Count 21.4 29.2 42.3 30.6 11.5 135.0

% within 9.6% 18.5% 26.7% 36.3% 8.9% 100.0%

Amount of
Interaction

Std. Residual -1.8 -.8 -1.0 3.3 .1

(table continues)

53
Table 12.1 (continued).

Course Evaluation

1 2 3 4 5 Total

Amount 3 Count 25 35 56 23 10 149

Of Student Expected Count 23.6 32.2 46.7 33.8 12.7 149.0

Interaction % within 16.8% 23.5% 37.6% 15.4% 6.7% 100.0%

Amount of
Interaction

Std. Residual .3 .5 1.4 -1.9 -.8

4 Count 11 28 39 26 4 108

Expected Count 17.1 23.4 33.9 24.5 9.2 108.0

% within 10.2% 25.9% 36.1% 24.1% 3.7% 100.0%

Amount of
Interaction

Std. Residual -1.5 1.0 .9 .3 -1.7

5 Count 44 31 35 14 5 129

Expected Count 20.4 27.9 40.4 29.2 11.0 129.0

% within 34.1% 24.0% 27.1% 10.9% 3.9% 100.0%

Amount of
Interaction

Std. Residual 5.2 .6 -.9 -2.8 -1.8

Total Count 93 127 184 133 50 587

Expected Count 93.0 127.0 184.0 133.0 50.0 587.0

% within 15.8% 21.6% 31.3% 22.7% 8.5% 100.0%

Amount of
Interaction

Table 12.2

Chi Square Test of Independence Crosstabulations for Students Perceived Interactions vs.
Their Overall Satisfaction with the Learning Experience: Perceived Amount of Student-
Instructor Interactions vs. Student Satisfaction

54
 Course Evaluation

1 2 3 4 5 Total

Amount 1 Count 0 6 13 12 18 49

Of Student - Expected Count 7.8 10.6 15.4 11.1 4.1 49.0

Instructor

Interaction % within .0% 12.2% 26.5% 24.5% 36.7% 100.0%

Amount of
Interaction

Std. Residual -2.8 -1.4 -.6 .3 6.9

2 Count 5 9 29 38 10 91

Expected Count 14.5 19.8 28.6 20.5 7.6 91.0

% within 5.5% 9.9% 31.9% 41.8% 11.0% 100.0%

Amount of
Interaction

Std. Residual -2.5 -2.4 .1 3.9 .9

3 Count 11 39 64 38 12 164

Expected Count 26.1 35.6 51.6 37.0 13.7 164.0

% within 6.7% 23.8% 39.0% 23.2% 7.3% 100.0%

Amount of
Interaction

Std. Residual -3.0 .6 1.7 .2 -.5

4 Count 21 41 50 28 7 147

Expected Count 23.4 31.9 46.2 33.2 12.3 147.0

% within 14.3% 27.9% 34.0% 19.0% 4.8% 100.0%

Amount of
Interaction

Std. Residual -.5 1.6 .6 -.9 -1.5

5 Count 56 32 28 16 2 134

Expected Count 21.3 29.1 42.1 30.2 11.2 134.0

% within 41.8% 23.9% 20.9% 11.9% 1.5% 100.0%

Amount of
Interaction

Std. Residual 7.5 .5 -2.2 -2.6 -2.8

Total Count 93 127 184 132 49 585

Expected Count 93.0 127.0 184.0 132.0 49.0 585.0

% within 15.9% 21.7% 31.5% 22.6% 8.4% 100.0%

Amount of Int

55
 Research Question (7): Is there a relationship between class format and perceived

interactions?

Null Hypothesis (7): There is no relationship between class format and perceived

interactions.

The Chi Square Test of Independence was used to test for the existence of a

relationship between class format (blended and online) and students perception of the quality

and quantity of their interactions (Tables 13.1-2). Although the descriptive statistics indicated

that blended and online students rated their perceptions of interactions very similarly, the null

hypothesis was rejected based on the results of the Chi Square Test of Independence. The

class format (blended or online) and the perceived interactions (including the amount and

quality of interactions with peers and instructor, as well as motivation and quality of learning

experience) do not seem to be independent. The only exception is the perceived amount of

knowledge gained in the class, which seems to be independent of the class format.

Table 13.1

Chi Square Test of Independence Crosstabulations for Students Perceived Interactions vs.
Class Format (Blended and Online): Perceived Amount of Student-Student Interactions vs.
Class Format

Course Format

1 2 Total
Blended Online

Amount 1 Count 37 33 70

Of Student - Expected Count 33.1 36.9 7.0

Student

Interaction % within 52.9% 47.1% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Std. Residual .7 -.6

(table continues)

56
Table 13.1 (continued).

Course Format

1 2 Total
Blended Online

Amount 2 Count 79 59 138

Of Student - Expected Count 65.3 72.7 138.0

Student

Interaction % within 57.2% 42.8% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Std. Residual 1.7 -1.6

3 Count 72 83 155

Expected Count 73.4 81.6 155.0

% within 46.5% 53.5% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Std. Residual -.2 .2

4 Count 49 60 109

Expected Count 51.6 57.4 109.0

% within 6.7% 23.8% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Std. Residual -.4 .3

5 Count 48 82 130

Expected Count 61.5 68.5 130.0

% within 36.9% 63.1% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Std. Residual -1.7 1.6

Total Count 285 317 602

Expected Count 93.0 127.0 602.0

% within 47.3% 52.7% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Table 13.2

Chi Square Test of Independence Crosstabulations for Students Perceived Interactions vs.
Class Format (Blended and Online): Perceived Amount of Student-Instructor Interactions vs.
Class Format

57
 Course Format

1 2 Total
Blended Online

Amount 1 Count 34 16 50

Of Student - Expected Count 23.6 12.4 50.0

Instructor

Interaction % within 68.0% 32.0% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Std. Residual 2.1 -2.0

2 Count 48 47 95

Expected Count 44.8 50.2 95.0

% within 50.5% 49.5% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Std. Residual .5 -.5

3 Count 81 90 171

Expected Count 80.7 90.3 171.0

% within 47.4% 52.6% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Std. Residual .0 .0

4 Count 68 80 148

Expected Count 69.8 78.2 148.0

% within 45.9% 54.1% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Std. Residual -.2 .2

5 Count 52 84 136

Expected Count 64.1 71.9 136.0

% within 38.2% 61.8% 100.0%

Amount of Int

Std. Residual -1.5 1.4

Total Count 283 317 600

Expected Count 283.0 317.0 600.0

% within 47.2% 52.8% 100.0%

Amount of Int

58
 Qualitative Data Analysis and Results

During the fall 2005 semester, a short mid semester survey was administered in the

blended courses. The survey (Appendix C) included questions on how students perceived

their learning experience. The survey was posted within the learning management system and

the instructors encouraged their students to fill them out. 146 students responded to the

survey and their overall rating of the blended course was good (on a scale of poor,

satisfactory, good, very good, and excellent). Based on the student responses to open-ended

questions on what they found the most and the least helpful in the blended course, the

researcher developed a set of codes (Patton, 2002) which were applied to the open-ended

responses of the end-of-semester survey (Appendix B).

Student Experiences

At the end of the end-of-semester survey, in addition to rating their learning

experience on a five-point scale (from poor to excellent), students were asked if they

considered their educational experience successful or unsuccessful and had the opportunity to

point out the best parts of the course. 741 students (276 blended, 311 online, and 154 face-to-

face students) answered at least one of the open-ended questions. The students comments on

the best course features as well as their suggestions for further improvements were analyzed

using qualitative research methods (Patton, 2002).

Preference for Class Format

When asked in an open-ended question, which aspect of the course most contributed

to its success, the majority of the blended students mentioned the class format, usually

emphasizing either the online or the face-to-face component. Only a small percentage of them

59
stated explicitly that they found the blended format (i.e., the combination of online and face-

to-face components) to be the major contributor to the successful learning experience.

The blended experience was found successful primarily because of three factors:

fewer in-class meetings than in a traditional course, meetings in small groups, and online

content. The combination of online content and in-class small group discussions was often

noted as the key to the success of the course. Students felt that having access to the content

online and being able to discuss it face-to-face with their peers and instructors reinforced the

information.

[The best thing about the blended course was] not having to go to class everyday and
being able to do lessons online instead! That actually made me want to go to class
when the time came.

[What made the course successful was] the flexibility of the online lessons combined
with the intimacy of the small discussion groups.

I think that what made the aspect of this course successful was that it was blended.
Having online lessons and in-class participations it was good for my schedule
completing the assignments.

The reasons for finding the blended format unsuccessful seemed to vary. The blended

students who found the blended experience unsuccessful (29.73%) primarily mentioned

course management, workload, and technology issues, as contributing factors. One of the

most common complaints was that the online content put too much responsibility on the

student in terms of their learning process and required independent learning. Some students

criticized the non-linear nature of the online component, and felt overwhelmed by the fact

that information was supposed to be gathered from various sources.

[It is] easy to forget things, [I] felt overwhelmed by all of the different places to go for
class needs.

60
 The fact that the class was online made it easy to forget about and easy to avoid.
I didn't like how everything was on the student to learn. The teacher is there to teach
and I would not have taken this course if I would have known what "blended" meant.

Some of the blended students also complained that the class did not meet often enough or that

the workload was too high.

There were a lot of online assignments and I felt like I couldnt keep up with them.

TOO MUCH WORK!!

There were only a few negative comments on technology. Some of the criticism was

directed at the learning management system because of the relatively frequent system

downtimes. Some students mentioned their lack of computer experience that made the online

component difficult to use.

While some students thought that the combination of online and face-to-face

components made the class successful, some students indicated that they found the course

unsuccessful for the same reason. They felt that the course had been successful if had been

either entirely online or entirely face-to-face.

I did not like the blended aspect of the class. I would have much rather had a
traditional class or a class that was entirely online. I felt like not enough time was
spent in the classroom to meet classmates and get a good sense of community and
develop a relationship with the teacher. I also felt since there was not enough time
spent online either, that that made me not concentrate as much on it as I would have if
it was a class that was entirely online.

A few students criticized in-class lectures for being pointless and indicated that they

would have rather had the entire class online. Students who found the online component more

useful than the face-to-face part commented on the effectiveness of the presentation of the

61
material, the use of interactive tools, and the small online discussion groups. The most often

mentioned positive feature of online classes was its flexibility in time and space. Students

appreciated that they were allowed to work at their own pace, felt that they had a more

efficient use of time, and that they were able to return to the lessons at any time for

clarification on concepts, assignments, schedules, and other course information. Online

lessons were mentioned as providing extra help, being more convenient in terms of students

schedules, and for providing a variety of learning tools including various listening exercises,

visual aids, videos, and self tests.

I really enjoy having lessons online because it gives me the chance to learn when it is
convenient for me. If I am not in the mood to learn I don't have to and when I am I
can focus a lot more clearly on all of the details. Also online lessons tend to cut down
on the useless information and focus on all of the important details. You don't have to
worry about being sidetracked because it is all right there in front of you and you
know it is important if the instructor took the time to actually write it all out.

Interestingly, while the presentation of the online course content seemed

overwhelming to some, those who expressed preference toward online learning praised the

online format for its easy access to materials online.

Students who preferred the face-to-face component of the blended course said that

they simply did not like the online interaction as much. They found the face-to-face

meetings more useful because of the small discussion groups.

While online and blended students seemed to focus on the online features or the small

face-to-face discussion groups as the main factors that contributed to the successful learning

experience, a relatively large percentage (40.37%) of face-to-face students attributed the

success of the course entirely to the instructor. They generally commented on the instructors

knowledge of the subject matter, enthusiasm, personality, or presentation style.

62
 Faculty Experiences

The researcher conducted two interviews with the blended faculty members during

each semester. The semi-structured interviews were conducted over the phone and via email

communication mid-semester and at the end of the semester (Appendix D). The researcher

also participated in the monthly blended faculty meetings where faculty challenges and

experiences were discussed.

Challenges for Faculty

During the first monthly faculty meeting and the mid-semester interviews, the faculty

reported mostly technical challenges. Since this was the first semester when the blended

faculty members used WebCT Vista, most of these were the result of their unfamiliarity with

the learning software. This problem was solved in the first couple of weeks of the semester as

the faculty became familiar with the system. The other source of technical challenges was the

occasional server downtime, which proved to be a problem for the instructors especially on

the weekends when they were grading most of the assignments. Although the instances of

system unavailability or slow response time were usually resolved in a reasonable time

period, those periods generated more email s for the instructors and resulted in the need for

more one-on-one time between faculty and student.

At the beginning of the semester, class management challenges involved

misunderstandings about the format of some of the class sections. The first time that the

courses were offered in a blended format, there was no separate category for blended sections

in the course schedules; thus the blended sections were listed as either online or face-to-face

sections. Many students in the nutrition class, for example, believed that they would attend a

weekly face-to-face lecture and were surprised to find out about the online component. The

opposite occurred in a communications course. The students believed that they enrolled in an

63
entirely online class and were disappointed to learn that they would be required to go to

campus a few times during the semester to attend classes. While many students dropped the

communications class after the first meeting, the nutrition faculty tried to accommodate the

blended students by allowing them to attend lectures of the face-to-face section. Although

this misalignment of expectations turned out to be a major issue for the involved faculty at

the beginning of the semester, it provided the researcher with an unexpected insight into

students expectations of the course format and how it affected their perceptions of the

learning experience.

Another example of a course design problem had to do with submitting assignments.

In one class students were initially allowed to submit assignments via email or paper-trail

(dropping assignments off at the office). As the instructor explained in retrospect,

I think e-mail is the way to go. Everything can be recreated in text format, filled in by
the student, saved, and e-mailed to me. I have found several reasons for this to be
beneficial. First, this method is beneficial to me because I can easily and quickly type
in my response, any questions I have, and a few general comments, save the
document, and reply instantaneously. For the students, this means, they dont need to
come by the office to drop-off assignments, then wait for me to grade, and then later
come back to the office to pick up their graded assignments. When its all done via e-
mail, everybody saves time and energy. Specifically, for both of us, I find myself
being asked to e-mail comments to assignments when the student is unable to make it
back to the office to pick up comments.

Throughout the semesters, some of the faculty faced challenges related to students

misunderstandings about upcoming assignments or meeting times. These challenges were

resolved by increased communication primarily through the use of announcements and

message boards designated to logistical questions. Instructors found these message boards

especially helpful, because allowing students to help each other with commonly asked

questions resulted in a shorter response time and a smaller number of emails to the instructor.

The instructors indicated that overall they had a very positive teaching experience, and the

few problems presented mostly learning opportunities.

64
Faculty Perception of Student Challenges

From the facultys perspective, the primary concerns for the students were related to

technical problems (as result of system outages) and misunderstandings about upcoming

assignments and events. Many students were confused about where and when they were

supposed to be in class and online. The faculty solved this problem as it occurred by directing

the students to the correct location. The students who reported problems with the learning

management system were provided with troubleshooting tips. For more serious problems,

they were referred to the university Helpdesk.

Another challenge was related to online content organization. The faculty noticed that

a few students had trouble navigating the website and finding the necessary information on

assignments or locating reading assignments. As a rule, emails and discussion forum postings

helped to overcome these problems in the short term. However, in the long term, the online

content presentation should be revised to make it more intuitive for the students.

Some of the faculty reported that many student frustrations resulted from

misunderstandings and realized that some students needed repeated communication through

various channels. These students were inclined to miss important information related to the

course management and the content of the course. While emails, announcements, and

discussion postings helped clarify logistical issues, self help quizzes also seemed to work

well in helping students focus on the content of the course.

In the Communication courses, for example, some students faced a new challenge

when it came time to present their speeches. Those enrolled in the online sections were

required to submit their videotaped speeches, while those in the blended sections had to

perform in front of their peers during the in-class meetings. Several of the blended students

mentioned that they found it more difficult to make their presentations because they did have

65
the same level of familiarity that they might have enjoyed in a traditional classroom setting.

They indicated that even though they interacted with each other online, the bonds they

formed as classmates were not the same as it would have been in a face-to-face class.

Academic Performance

In general, the faculty was satisfied throughout the semesters with the academic

performance of the blended students. In fact, most of the faculty noted that while the blended

students performance was comparable to those in the online sections, the quality of both was

significantly higher than those in the face-to-face sections. The blended and online students

were prepared adequately and followed the assignments fairly well, which apparently did not

always occur in the face-to-face sections.

While it is almost impossible to generate quality discussions in large face-to-face

classes, the faculty noted that the number and quality of discussion postings in the online and

blended sections were relatively high and that the students seemed to be engaged in the

discussions. The majority of students posted quality discussions and most posted more than

the required number of postings. The instructors made a conscious effort to increase the

quality of discussions by asking questions from those students whose postings were lacking

in quality. They found that the students who did not post quality comments were also the

ones who only posted the required number of times, which suggests that these students did

not check back for responses or comments to their own postings to see if they needed

additional participation.

A couple of instructors whose blended and online sections students scored lower on

the exams than their students in the face-to-face class wondered whether the amount and

quality of the discussion postings indicated deep learning or true engagement in the course

material.

66
 Without a doubt, they are engaging in discussion forums well, but I cant ascertain
whether some of them are really cognitively engaging or if they are sitting with their
books in hand writing what I think the best answer would be.

In the online sections, faculty also noted a difference in the quality of discussion

postings between group and individual postings. The quality of group discussion postings

seemed much better than the individuals postings. They were longer and included more

thoughts.

Small group in-class discussions proved to be effective for blended students. The

faculty noted that during these sessions the blended classes seemed particularly engaged,

because they were allowed and encouraged to ask questions of one another and to inquire

about the topics from the instructor.

The thing that I find myself most encouraged by is that fact that several of the
students in both the online and blended environments chose persuasive speech topics
that were somewhat more controversial than most of those did in the face-to-face
environment.

Students in the online communications classes also seemed more comfortable with

more sensitive or provocative topics, probably because they did not have to present in front of

an unknown audience.

I really enjoyed this aspect of the course because I felt that the students, even if only
those presenting, were able to reach beyond their own knowledge and find someone
new and intriguing.

In general, the faculty noted that students in most online and blended sections

performed better on the quizzes than did the students in face-to-face classes. These instructors

agreed that the students seemed more engaged with the material and seemed to understand

some of the more complex concepts better (or at least more quickly) because of the online

lessons.

67
Workload Issues

Overall the faculty agreed that the student workload was manageable or even

relatively light in the blended courses. They concluded this based on students comments and

the student tracking information of the learning software. They also assumed that since the

blended students had the flexibility of completing the assessments online and did not have to

submit assignments or prepare for random quizzes during class meetings, the students had it

pretty easy in terms of workload.

My perception is that the workload for students is really light. They dont have to
come to class with prepared assignments, and they know in advance what those
assignments (DFs [Discussion Forums] and others) are and can complete (DFs
specifically) them on their own time, even early if they so desire. I guess from my
perspective, the blended students have it pretty easy by way of workload.

Some of the faculty members recognized the possibility that blended students might

perceive that they carried a heavier workload (relative to in-class students) because they were

required to participate in both online and in-class discussions.

I do not think that the student workload is too much. They might perceive it as being
higher, though, because they are not used to reading their textbooks in preparation for
class.

As for their own workload, all faculty members felt it was somewhat higher than

teaching a face-to-face class. This was partly because they were still working on parts of the

online and blended courses, and partly because the online component meant increased

communication between students and instructor. However, all faculty indicated that they

found email and discussion postings to be the most efficient ways to communicate with their

students.

68
 A few faculty members reported that the workload occasionally felt overwhelming

(primarily as a result of the high volume of emails), but they also realized that adapting the

course structure would alleviate this problem. Interestingly, even though faculty members

tried to keep the assignments comparable to those in their face-to-face classes, they reported

more time spent on grading in the blended and online sections. This might have been due to

the additional technical processes, such as downloading and opening files, changing file

formats or printing documents if necessary, typing answers, returning graded assignments as

attachments, etc.

Student-Student Interactions, Community Building

The faculty believed that the blended sections were the most conducive to community

building among the students. They noticed that the students felt more connected to both the

instructors and each other after each in-class meeting.

It had been interesting to observe the students in the Small Discussion Groups. They
are not used to talking in class, and it took them a few minutes to start speaking up.
Once they began talking, though, they seemed comfortable and excited to share their
ideas. There were definitely a couple of quiet students in each group.

Online discussions also contributed the students sense of community. In the online

discussion topics, many of the questions were answered by peers even before the instructor

had a chance to respond. This mode of communication as well as the collaborative group

projects helped students to bond and build a community of trust and hard work.

Students also discovered that they could use the discussion topics as tools for

initiating study groups or course related events.

One exciting thing happened just this week. The students are required to attend two
music concerts outside of class, and some of them are nervous about this prospect. In
the past, they have tended to attend concerts by themselves, but because of the online
discussion postings, they have begun to make plans to attend concerts as a group. I
think that they are feeling more connected to each other, even though they are not in

69
 class together as much. The timing of this particular discussion posting happens to
coincide with the first rotation of Small Discussion Groups, which suggests to me that
the combination of in-class meetings (especially the smaller groups) and the online
community is effective.

In general, the faculty did not report signs indicating that students were having

difficulties working with one another. The students appeared to be supportive of each other.

They responded to each others questions, made suggestions or positive comments and

seemed to have quality online conversations. Typically, the communities were positive and

complementary, requiring little faculty intervention.

Student-Instructor Interactions

In the face-to-face sections, the instructors did not notice a student preference for any

specific form of communication. Many students chatted with the instructor before or after

class briefly, but also many found that email was a sufficient method of communication.

These chats and emails were primarily course related, but very rarely were they content

specific.

The majority of the online and blended students, however, chose email as the primary

means of communication with their instructor and that resulted in a significantly increased

number of emails. One instructor reported as much as five times as many emails in the online

section as in the blended section. In the end of the semesters, a few instructors realized that

they received many questions via e-mail that were plainly answered in the assignments, but

they responded to them nonetheless. As rule, instructors went beyond just answering emails if

at least two or more students contacted them about the same issue. They would check the

problem and rephrase or reiterate directions and post them to the discussion forums.

In the blended sections, instructors noted that the increased email communication

noticeably reduced the in-class questions, even though they very rarely were content-related.

70
Very often, the emails were about technical difficulties and from the same few students. One

instructor noted that she found it very strange when a blended student asked for extra credit in

an email, because in her practice that never happened before in a face-to-face class. She

attributed this to some form of e-courage since they only rarely met in person.

Some of the blended and online students would drop by or schedule an appointment

during the instructors face-to-face office hours as well, but that mostly occurred in advance

of assignment due dates. The conversations during these usually very brief meetings were

often not even class related. Only one instructor mentioned a couple of instances when she

was contacted by students during her online office hours via chat.

Even if it was not explicitly stated, students accommodated themselves to the

instructors pattern of communication early in the semester. Most instructors do not check

discussion postings on a daily basis but rather about three times a week just to make sure that

they are not missing anything. On the other hand, they tend to log in at set times for grading

and responding to email.

Summary

This chapter presented the various data analysis techniques used in the current study

as well as the results of both quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The next chapter

focuses on the research findings by synthesizing the results of the quantitative and qualitative

methods. Chapter 5 addresses the implications of the study in terms of blended course design

and it includes suggestions on how universities can help students find the course format that

best fits their life styles and learning styles.

71
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

This chapter is a report on the findings and implications of a study regarding the

relationship between interactions and the effectiveness of face-to-face, blended, and online

learning environments. The first section of the chapter provides a brief overview of the study

including the original research problem and the data collection procedures. The second

section presents a synthesis of the research findings. The third section is a discussion of the

conclusions. The fourth section addresses the implications of the research results, and the last

section recommends additional research ideas in order to further our understanding of the

relationship between interactions and the effectiveness of blended learning.

Summary of the Study

Interaction has long been a defining and critical component of the education process

(Anderson, 2004) as well as an important factor in distance education. The present study was

designed to examine two related research problems. The first focused on the comparison of

the effectiveness of blended, online, and face-to-face instruction in terms of students attitude

changes toward the subject matter and students perceptions of the effectiveness of the

learning experience. The second research problem investigated the relationship between

students perceived and actual interactions and their effects on student satisfaction with the

overall learning experience.

72
 The literature on blended learning has been dominated by detailed descriptions of its

introduction in campus-based courses (Stacey & Gerbic, 2008) and by summaries of factors

that seem to promote successful blends of online and face-to-face learning. Blended learning

research has focused on specific aspects of blended learning, primarily the technology.

Recently, more and more researchers argue for a more holistic approach to blended learning

that will facilitate a better understanding of the complexity of its settings and its processes as

a whole system (Bliuc, Goodyear, Ellis, 2007; Chen & Jones, 2007) as well as the complex

relationships between blended learning, student behavior, attendance, and attainment (Barrett,

Rainer, Marczyk, 2007).

Investigating the quality and quantity of interactions is one way to get to a more

holistic inquiry of the learning process. Interaction research has identified student-teacher,

student-student, and student-content interactions as the three most common types of

interaction in the distance learning process (Moore, 1989). In the distance learning literature,

the increased quality and quantity of interactions have been linked to more positive student

outcomes (Keefe, 2003), a higher degree of sense of community (Rovai, 2002), and higher

order learning (Harasim, 1989; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2004). Learning theories (such

as the theory of conditions of learning, engagement theory, or the theory of situated learning)

as well as communication theories (such as the theories of immediacy and social presence)

suggest that promoting interaction will lead to a positive communication process and learning

experience and will promote higher order learning. Blended learning by its very nature

expands the opportunities for quality interaction.

As a comparative study examining the differences between various types of

instruction, the current study focused on a population of predominantly undergraduate

students enrolled in five blended undergraduate courses and their face-to-face and online

equivalents offered at the University of North Texas between fall 2005 and summer 2006.

73
The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of the newly developed blended

courses compared to their traditional face-to-face and fully online sections. The researcher

participated as an observer in both the planning and implementation phases of the project.

During fall 2005 and spring and summer of 2006, the researcher collected quantitative and

qualitative data from students via online and paper surveys, and qualitative data from the

blended faculty via interviews and observations during the monthly blended faculty meetings.

Findings

Student Profiles

The population of the study was composed of undergraduate students at the

University of North Texas. The sample seemed rather homogenous throughout all sections in

terms of gender, geographic location, and computer expertise. They were predominantly

female students living within 10 miles of the UNT Denton campus with reported intermediate

computer skills. The demographic comparison of blended, online, and face-to-face students

showed significant difference only in terms of age among the sections. While the majority

(57.9%) of online students was between 21 and 30 years old, most students in the blended

(64.5%) and the face-to-face (60.71%) sections were under 20.

Student Satisfaction and Perceived Success of the Learning Experience

Overall, students in all sections were satisfied with their learning experience. At the

end of the semesters, students were asked to rate their overall learning experience on a scale

from poor (1) to excellent (5). The Bonferroni test of multiple comparisons revealed that

there was a significant difference between the face-to-face and the other two (online and

blended) courses. While the mean scores for the overall course ratings were similar in the

online (mean=2.91) and blended (mean=2.81) sections, the mean for the face-to-face sections

74
was significantly higher (mean=3.59) indicating an overall higher satisfaction with the

learning experience in a traditional lecture-based learning environment.

The learning experience was considered successful by the majority of students in all

sections. One surprising finding was that while the perceived success rate was around 70% in

the online and blended sections, the face-to-face sections were considered successful by

almost 95% of the students. The success of face-to-face courses was primarily attributed to

the teacher. The teachers style, enthusiasm, knowledge, and presentation style were

mentioned specifically. Only a small percentage of students mentioned the subject matter,

certain parts of the course material, in-class discussions, or audio-visual presentations (e.g.,

videos) as factors that contributed to the success of the course. Interestingly, in the online and

blended courses, the teachers role was negligible in making the course successful. Blended

students attributed the success of the course to three main factors: fewer in-class meetings

than in a traditional course, meetings in small groups, and additional online content. The

combination of online content and in-class small group discussions was often noted as the

key to the success of the course. Students felt that having access to the course material online

and being able to discuss it face-to-face with their peers and instructors reinforced the

information.

Student Attitude Toward Subject

Changes in students attitude toward the subject matter can also indicate the

effectiveness of teaching methods. While the pre-test results of the Attitude Toward Subject

survey showed no significant difference among the three teaching formats in terms of average

attitude scores (AS), the post-test multiple comparison results revealed that at the end of the

semester those taking face-to-face classes had significantly higher attitude score (AS

mean=112.76) than those enrolled in online (AS mean=97.36) or blended (AS mean=98.12)

75
sections. It should also be mentioned that while the attitude of online students did not change

by the end of the semester, blended students attitude toward the subject dropped significantly

and face-to-face students attitude increased significantly. This was an unexpected finding,

especially since the qualitative data collected from both faculty and students suggested that

the blended students did enjoy the blended format and seemed more enthusiastic about the

class than the face-to-face students. Faculty perceptions of student academic performance

also indicated that the blended students also performed better than students in online and

face-to-face sections. It is possible that the attitude toward the subject in the blended classes

was negatively affected by the lack of time management and independent learning skills that

were required by these classes but not possessed by all of the students.

Online Interactions and Academic Performance

One of the main research questions in the study asked if there is a relationship

between students actual online interactions and academic performance in the blended and

online sections. Since the final scores for the students were only available in the blended and

online sections of the Principles of Language Study (LING3060) class, the researcher

examined the relationship between the final scores (the measure of academic performance on

a scale of 1-100) and the variables measuring actual online interactions (such as time spent in

the online course, the number of online sessions, discussion postings, and emails) in these

two sections. While there seemed to be no correlation between final scores and the number of

emails sent or the number of discussion postings read, the Pearsons r indicated a low

positive correlation between final scores and number of discussion postings (.472), number of

online sessions (.495) and the amount of time spent online (.458).

Comparing the interactions between blended and online students, there was a

moderate to high correlation between final scores and discussion postings in the online

76
classes (.658), whereas the same correlation in the blended classes was low (.387). This

seems to support the theory that learning is indeed a social process and in the entirely online

learning environment those who interact more often with their peers and instructor(s) during

online discussions engage more in the course material and achieve higher grades. In blended

classes, the need to engage in the material via online discussions is somewhat reduced by the

face-to-face interactions, especially the small group discussions. This may also suggest that

the most valuable feature of online classes is the peer discussions where students engage in

critical thinking and problem solving.

The finding that there is no correlation between final scores and email (i.e., online

one-on-one communication) is also supported by the qualitative results of the study.

Instructors and students both reported that they used email communication primarily about

course or assignment related logistical issues and not course content. In fact, the study

showed that the volume of logistical emails was actually reduced in well-designed courses

that had clear instructions and straightforward assignment descriptions.

Blended and online students were compared in terms of their online interactions and

academic performance. The average final score (using a 1-100 point scale) was almost 7

points (almost a letter grade) higher for the blended students than for the online students.

Although, this result was based on a relatively small sample (149 blended and 154 online

students), university records showed similar results indicating on average almost a letter

grade difference between the blended and online sections.

Faculty perceptions of student performance did not reveal significant differences

between online and blended students in terms of their academic performance. Most of the

faculty noted that the blended students performance was comparable to those in the online

sections. However, they also noted that the quality of both online and blended students

performance was significantly higher than those in the face-to-face sections. The blended and

77
online students were prepared adequately and followed the assignments fairly well, which

apparently did not always occur in the face-to-face sections. Students in most online and

blended sections performed better on the quizzes than did the students in face-to-face classes.

The instructors agreed that online and blended students seemed more engaged with the

material and seemed to understand some of the more complex concepts more easily than

face-to-face students. They attributed this to the availability of online content and the online

discussions.

Interestingly, the faculty perceived the student workload lighter in the blended courses

than in the face-to-face sections. They assumed that since the blended students had the

flexibility of completing the assessments online and did not have to prepare for random

quizzes during class meetings, the students had it pretty easy in terms of workload and

stress. On the other hand, student perceptions indicated that the workload in the blended

courses seemed much higher than in face-to-face courses. This supports the findings reported

by Chen and Jones (2007) who argue that online discussions force blended students to be

more prepared and generally more involved in the learning process, whereas students in a

traditional classroom setting stay more passive and tend to rely on mere classroom

attendance, which does not necessarily mean engagement in the course material. The

qualitative results regarding students perceptions of the workload in the traditional lecture-

based classes are also in line with the NSSE 2008 results (NSSE, 2008) that about one-fifth

of the first-year students report frequently attending class without completing readings or

assignments. This supports the argument that the possibility of random in-class quizzes is

very often not enough of a motivation for students to engage in the course material. Courses

delivered primarily online, on the other hand, seem to stimulate students level of intellectual

challenge (NSSE, 2008) and engagement in the learning process.

78
 Although the initial descriptive statistics indicated that blended students spent less

time online, sent fewer emails and posted to the discussion topics fewer times than online

students, the Independent Samples t-tests revealed no significant difference between online

and blended students in terms of the volume of their online interactions. The difference

between blended and online sections in terms of final scores can be attributed to the

additional face-to-face meetings.

Perceptions

Perhaps the most puzzling finding of the present study was the contradiction between

some of the quantitative results and the student and faculty perceptions of the learning

experience. Most students and faculty considered the blended approach a successful form of

instruction. Students appreciated the online content and the increased interaction with the

instructor via online discussions and through assignment feedback. The blended faculty

anecdotally reported higher academic performance in the blended classes than in the face-to-

face and online sections. However, when students were asked to rate their learning

experience and respond to the Attitude Toward Subject survey, the traditional face-to-face

lecture-based sections were rated more positively than the other two forms of instruction and

they showed an increase in students attitude toward the subject. One possible explanation is

that this study was based on the very first blended project at the University of North Texas

and each blended course was designed separately without following any of the course

models. Students were not used to the new format, which eventually affected their

perceptions of the learning experience and their attitude toward the subject.

Conclusions

79
 Students enter college with a variety of backgrounds and experiences. Some students

become highly engaged in the learning and extracurricular activities of their high schools,

while others are less engaged. Some students set high academic expectations for their first

year based on stories of family, friends, and teachers, while others do not (NSSE, 2008).

Students also enter college with varying levels of academic preparation. Some students are

underprepared while others are highly prepared for college. Underprepared students are

usually less engaged than highly prepared students in both academically challenging

activities and collaborative learning (NSSE, 2008).

Previous Experience

One possible explanation of the relatively higher perceived success rate of the face-to-

face lecture courses as compared to the blended sections is students lack of familiarity with

blended learning as well as their different expectations of the college experience. The study

was done during the first semesters of the introduction of blended courses at UNT and for

most of the students, this was their first college experience. Previous research support the

idea that familiarity with technology (Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004) and previous

expectations of the learning experience (Osborne, 2000) affect student satisfaction with the

course. After conducting a longitudinal study on the perception of online courses, Arbaugh

(2004) also found that student perception of online learning became more positive as students

took subsequent courses, and that the most notable change came between the first and second

course.

Traditional View of Higher Education

Recent developments in brain research and learning theories offer another possible

explanation for the discrepancies between the various blended results of this study. Zull

80
(2002) claims that the traditional view of learning is still prevalent in our education system.

The learner is viewed as the receiver of information, and the transformation of the learner

from a receiver into the producer of knowledge very often remains unsupported in many

courses. Teachers feel the constant pressure to increase the amount of information in their

classes and students expect control and authority from the teachers. It is not surprising then

that the perception of the success of the learning experience and even the attitude toward

subject matter seem to be affected by the perceptions of interactions. The central role of the

instructor in making a course a successful learning experience suggests that first-year

students tend to believe that school is about authority and control. As one researcher has

concluded, it is about knowledge being located somewhere outside us: in books, the

teachers brain, on educational television, or on the Internet (Zull, 2002, p. 45).

While in a face-to-face lecture class, the success of the course depends on the

instructors personality and how the instructor is perceived by the students, in the computer

mediated environment, there is more emphasis on collaborative learning and less emphasis on

variations of content presentation dependent on the instructor. In collaborative learning, the

perception of a community and peer interactions gain importance. However, students initial

expectations of the student and teacher roles seem to affect their perception of the utility of

both student-instructor and student-student interactions. Blended learning can combine the

discovery approach while still keeping the traditional teaching method, where the teacher is

the main source of information.

Models of Student Development

Models of student development, such as Kegans (1994) personal developmental

framework provide another possible explanation of the unexpected results of this study. In

Kegans framework, individuals move from the first to the fifth order of consciousness over

81
their lifetimes while developing foundations that help them make sense of the world. College

students are typically at the level of second or third order of consciousness and the goal for

them is to achieve the fourth order by the end of their four-year higher education. The

Student as Scholar Model developed by Hodge, LePore, Pasquesi, and Hirsh (2008) focuses

on students progressing from their reliance on external authority in the third order of

consciousness to an internal authority in the fourth order (p. 4). In this study, the majority of

students enrolled in the face-to-face and blended sections were new college students at the

beginning of their undergraduate education and probably in their second or third level of

consciousness of development. The decrease in attitude toward subject and the lower ratings

of the learning experience in the blended sections as compared to the face-to-face sections

might have been the results of the students need for external authority.

The challenge for higher education is to consciously build an evolutionary bridge that

fosters this developmental transformation. Blended courses seem to be especially suitable for

providing these intermediate-level learning experiences of the model and helping students

across Kegans (1994) evolutionary bridge. The intermediate-level experiences take the

students beyond the book (and professor) and challenge them to continue their personal

development as scholars. Students who successfully progress to this intermediate level will

have the skills and confidence that will allow them to perform at a much higher level

immediately after graduation and will be more likely to become lifelong learners.

Implications

While research has not provided a complete description of what exactly makes a

successful learning experience (Stacey & Gerbic, 2008), blended learning has been gaining

popularity in academia as an alternative to traditional face-to-face and entirely online

education. Although some of the quantitative results of this study indicate that lecture-based

82
face-to-face learning is still favored by many undergraduate students and it is perceived as a

more effective way of learning, the qualitative results show that most students quickly adjust

to blended learning and recognize the advantages of adding online content and activities to

face-to-face lecture-based classes. The two key success factors in the blended learning

environment, as identified by Stacey and Gerbic (2008) and as supported by the qualitative

results of this study, are the strong integration between the online and face-to-face

environment (Garrison, Kanuka, & Hawes, 2004; Garrison & Vaughan, 2007) and the careful

consideration of the roles of teachers (Gerbic, 2006) and students.

Teacher Roles

One of the main implications of the study is that the integration of online components

into large-enrollment lecture-based face-to-face undergraduate classes is changing the way

both students and instructors work, and universities should be prepared to accommodate and

anticipate these changes. In their research, Cuthrell and Lyons (2007) concluded that online

instructors must employ a variety of instructional strategies to appear to a wide range of

students. Gerbic (2006) found that encouragement, reminders from the teacher and discussion

of the rationale for addition of online discussions was not especially effective in connecting

online discussions to the classroom. In the present study, however, it was discovered that

undergraduate students in their first college year very often do not have the time management

skills that are required for successful online learning. They need and appreciate reminders

and consider them as contributing factors to the perceived effectiveness of the course. Ideally,

the teacher can follow the students progress and can intervene when learning is stalled as

students go through the entire learning cycle.

Also, in addition to small group discussions or other face-to-face activities,

undergraduate students seem to have a need for the presence of a teacher as a source of

83
content-related information and not just as a person providing feedback on assignments. The

teachers role as discussion leader in a small group setting is also considered important, while

peer comments are generally not found very useful. Students also expressed the need for

occasional summary lectures during the face-to-face sessions. The least favored blended

classes had scheduled meetings only for student presentations and exams. The most favorably

viewed blended classes had a variety of interactions (discussions in small groups, lectures,

presentations, and other face-to-face activities) reflecting the model developed by Garrison

and Vaughn (2007).

Student Roles

Although learning environments should respond to local and organizational needs,

course developers and designers should consider the learners needs first (Mason & Rennie,

2006) ahead of the context or the biases of the teacher in making such choices. This study

revealed that undergraduate students often do not have realistic expectations of the workload

in blended classes. They assume that reduced classroom time means smaller workload in

terms of fewer interactions with the instructor as well as the content and it may come as a

surprise to many of them that the online component of the course entails a higher level of

engagement with the course material and an increased interaction with both their instructor

and peers. In general, new college students need time to understand the blended learning

process and blended instructors need to provide a consistent and transparent communication

around the new expectations to facilitate this process (Sharpe, Benfield, Robert, & Francis,

2006).

At university level, students should be advised about what to expect from blended

courses in terms of workload and class attendance as well as what kind of learning and

communications styles are required for success. The National Survey of Student Engagement

84
(NSSE) (2008) also recommends a careful analysis of students entering college to identify

those who may need special intervention to ensure engagement and success. They

recommend using the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2008) to

assess students propensity for engagement in college.

When to Employ Blended vs. Online Methods?

An important implication of the study is that entirely online courses should be

designed and evaluated differently than lecture-based face-to-face or blended courses. Online

courses seem to serve a very different population: older students who work full-time and live

further away from campus. Their highest priority in completing courses is flexibility in time

and space. If these online courses are suddenly combined with face-to-face meetings, they

lose their convenience and attraction as a way of earning a course credit or degree. This

flexibility also requires a very different approach to the course design process. While blended

courses should be designed around face-to-face activities, online courses should be designed

around online activities. In this study, the blended courses that received the most positive

feedback from students showed resemblance to the four phase blended model developed by

Garrison and Vaughan (2007). In their model, the central role of the face-to-face environment

provides the comfort of a traditional learning environment for both students and instructors,

and it also includes a sequence of activities before, during, after, and in preparation for the

next face-to-face session. Face-to-face activities, such as small group discussions or small

group activities cannot simply be replaced by online discussions, because online students will

instinctively feel the need for face-to-face interactions with their instructor and peers and this

will affect their perception of the success of the learning experience.

Learning Styles

85
 There are indications in the blended learning literature that blended learning might be

especially suitable to accommodate different learning styles by providing learners the

opportunity to choose the appropriate strategy to meet their learning needs. While

independent learners can take advantage of the freedom an online learning environment

provides, dependent learners, who are less self-regulated and need more frequent directions

and reinforcement from a visible professor, can benefit from the periodic opportunities for

face-to-face interactions of blended courses. This study supports previous findings that

blended learning environment can help students understand and experience the right balance

of independence and interaction or reflection and collaboration (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes,

2004).

Kinesthetic, visual, and auditory learners (Fleming, 2009) can all be accommodated in

the blended environment. Providing visual clues together with auditory information and

kinesthetic exercises might help students to make connections, take them through the entire

learning cycle (Zull, 2002), and eventually deepen their learning. Different learning styles

could be accommodated not only through content delivery, but also by allowing a choice of

assessment tasks.

Blended Course Design

Colleges should consider using the Student as Scholar model (Hodge et al., 2008) of

student development to create developmentally appropriate curricula that build student

capability progressively throughout the college years. Hodge et al. (2008) recommend

applying their Student as Scholar Model to the entire undergraduate experience and taking

into account the development of the students. As students complete undergraduate courses

during their college years, they move across a developmental bridge (Hodge et al., 2008)

that takes them from foundational courses to advanced level courses. Undergraduate courses

86
in general and blended courses in particular should be designed following this model and

should focus on students progressing from their reliance on external authority to internal

authority.

Future Research

The more we learn about the learning process, the more we realize that it is more

complex than expected. The medium, the course design, the applied pedagogical strategies,

the subject matter, learners preference for dependent or independent learning, or their

personalities are just a few factors that contribute to the complexity of the process. The

results of the present study suggest several areas that would benefit from further research.

Interaction Research

The concept of interaction should be further investigated, but primarily within the

online and blended classes. Interaction in traditional lecture-based instruction does not seem

to be comparable to the other two forms of instruction. The main difference is that in a face-

to-face large-enrollment lecture class, most students seem to interact only passively with their

instructors and the course material; whereas in a small-group face-to-face setting or in the

interactive online learning environment, students actively interact with their instructors,

peers, and the course content. Considering the active involvement in the learning process via

student-initiated interaction, both blended and online learning seem to represent a

fundamental redesign that transforms the structure of, and approach to, teaching and

learning (Garrison & Vaughan, 2007, p. 5).

As new patterns of online interaction are identified and as new theories of learning

and communication emerge in the online environment, there will be a need for new

comparative studies of learning outcomes, course effectiveness, and the types of interactions

87
involved in the process. Interactions in graduate and doctoral level courses should be

examined in order to find out how student maturity and familiarity with the subject matter

affects the quality and quantity of online and face-to-face interactions.

In a smaller scale study, deep and surface learning should also be measured to provide

a more complete picture of the effect of the class format on the learning experience. A next

step toward this could be an analysis of cognitive (content) postings using the SOLO

Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982) to detect what types of learning occurs during the learning

process.

Role of Previous Online Experience

The findings of the attitude toward subject survey suggest that while online

instruction did not affect students total attitude scores, blended instruction decreased the

scores, and face-to-face instruction increased them. Longitudinal studies are needed to find

out if undergraduate students previous exposure to online and blended learning will result in

different attitude changes toward the subject matter of the blended classes. Measuring

undergraduate students learning maturity and readiness for blended or online learning would

be another possible approach to investigate the contradiction between the results of this

attitude survey and the blended students high academic performance.

Cognitive Development

Kegans (1994) personal development model seems to be especially applicable to

blended learning. The model was designed to support students in learning to construct

knowledge and it also challenges them to achieve self-authorship during college (Hodge, et

al., 2008). A longitudinal study should examine the same group of college students from a

developmental perspective to determine if students perceptions of the learning experience as

88
well as their attitude toward the subject would change as they grow their personal identities

and academic capabilities during the college years. Initial measurements of cognitive

development could also be investigated as possible predictors of students preference for

teaching format.

Summary

It is an exciting time to be involved in education. Over the past few years, blended

learning has received considerable attention in both academia and the corporate world and

has quickly become the new wave of e-learning. Although some of the definitions of blended

learning are fairly simple, the implementation of an effective course and the understanding of

the importance of face-to-face interaction are much more complex than we thought.

This study supported the argument that blended learning can combine the strengths of

face-to-face and online learning and can provide a more effective learning experience. The

present comparison of interactions in the various learning environments also confirms that

interaction is indeed one of the key variables in the learning process. The finding that the

quantity of online interactions in the blended and online courses were not significantly

different suggest that blended classes take advantage of the face-to-face interactions as well

as enhance students interaction with the content and their peers. The potential for immediate

individualized feedback and the availability of self test quizzes enhanced students

understanding of course concept and their retention of the course material.

Blended learning has the potential to improve learning and to engage students in the

course material. Although the perceived success rates and students attitude towards the

subject were the highest in the traditional lecture classes, both blended and online courses

were perceived as successful learning experiences by a large majority of the participants. The

blended courses received very positive reviews reflecting a deeper engagement in the subject

89
and a new-found excitement for learning. Most blended students also agreed that they would

take blended courses again in the future.

These findings support the argument that there is no single recipe for designing a

successful blended course. The optimal blend of face-to-face and online learning events may

vary in every discipline and in every course. Different learning goals may require different

solutions as well. While case studies and white papers will remain important resources for

designers of blended learning programs, course development will remain an iterative process

in which instructors and instructional designers will have to periodically re-evaluate the

effectiveness of their courses with students learning maturity and readiness for independent

learning in mind.

90
 APPENDIX A

ATTITUDE TOWARD SUBJECT SURVEY

91
Dear Student:

This is the second part of our Attitude Toward Subject survey. The questions below are
designed to identify your attitudes toward the subject of the course you are finishing this
semester. The item scale has 7 possible responses; the responses range from 1 (strongly
disagree) through 4 (neither disagree nor agree) to 7 (strongly agree). Please read each
question. From the 7-point scale, carefully mark the one response that most clearly represents
your agreement with that statement. Use the entire 7-point scale to indicate your degree of
agreement or disagreement with our items.

Please remember that the survey information will be kept confidential. Your instructor will
only see a summary of responses. The data you provide will only be used to see what
relationships exist between student attitudes toward subject and the effectiveness of the
course delivery format.

If you have any questions about this survey, please feel free to call or e-mail me. Thank you
for your assistance.

Agnes Pearcy

92
 End-of-Course Questionnaire

[Adapted from Schau, C., Stevens, J., Dauphinee, T. L., & Del Vecchio, A. (1995). The
development and validation of the Survey of Attitudes toward Statistics. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 868-875.]

Your Name: _________________________ Date: ____________________

Name of Course: ____________________

Your Gender: __________

Your Age: _________

Degree you are currently seeking:

1. Bachelors 2. Masters 3. Doctorate 4. Certification 5. Other

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about this course?

Strongly Disagree (1) / Somewhat Disagree (2) / Disagree (3) / No Opinion (4) / Agree (5)
/ Somewhat Agree (6) / Strongly Agree (7)

1. I did well in this course.

2. The knowledge and skills I gained in this

course will make me more employable.

3. I liked this course.

4. This is a subject quickly learned by most

people.

5. This course should be a required part of

my professional training.
6. I was under stress during these classes.

7. I felt insecure when I had to do the

assignments for this course.
8. Learning this subject requires a great deal
of discipline.
9. This subject makes me feel anxious or
uncomfortable.

10. This course does not fit into my overall

educational needs.

93
11. Most people have to learn a new way of
thinking to do well in this course.

12. I found it difficult to understand the

concepts of this subject.

13. I find the topic of this course very

interesting.

14. This is a complicated subject.

15. I enjoyed class discussions.

16. This subject is irrelevant in my life.

17. I am knowledgeable about the topic of this

course.

18. The knowledge and skills I gained in this

course will be useful in my everyday life.

19. I will have no application of this subject in

my profession.

20. I am scared by this subject.

21. I had trouble understanding this subject

because of how I think.

22. I can learn this subject.

94
 APPENDIX B

END-OF-SEMESTER COURSE EVALUATION SURVEY

95
Dear Student:

We are conducting a research study comparing the effectiveness of face-to-face, online, and
blended learning. Using this survey, we would like to assess how well this course met your
learning needs, and whether the format of the course delivery affected the extent to which
these needs were met. The following questionnaire was designed to get feedback on your
overall satisfaction with your learning experience, with an emphasis on your perceived
learning, your sense of community, and your perception of the quantity and quality of
interactions with your instructor and your peers.

The majority of the questions below are multiple choice questions. Please read each question
and carefully mark the one response that most clearly represents your agreement with that
statement. Please always use the entire (5- or 7-point) scale to indicate your degree of
agreement or disagreement with our items. In the last four questions, please give us your
overall evaluation of the course and your suggestions for improvement.

Please note that even though this survey is not anonymous, your information will be kept
confidential. Upon receipt, coded labels will be affixed to the survey forms, which will be
kept separate from the informed consent forms. Your instructor will only see a summary of
responses. The data you provide will be used to compare the effectiveness and to improve the
quality of the three types of course delivery format.

If you have any questions or concerns about this survey, please feel free to call or e-mail me.
Thank you for your assistance.

Agnes Pearcy

96
 QUESTIONNAIRE

Name:

Date:

Course Title and Section Number:

Number of credits for this course:

Age: Under 20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 Over 50

Gender: Male / Female

How far do you live from the main campus of UNT?

0-10 miles 11-30 miles 31-50 miles 51-100 miles More than 100 miles

Level of computer expertise: Novice / Intermediate / Expert

Why did you decide to take this course? (Mark all that apply.)
to fulfill a general education requirement
to fulfill a requirement for my major
the subject matter looked interesting
the instructor has a good reputation
it was offered this semester
it was offered in a traditional lecture format
it was offered as a web-based course
it was offered as a blended course

Perception of Interactions

[Adapted from Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction,

presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
6(1), 21-40. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from
http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/pdf/v6n1_picciano.pdf]

In comparison to traditional classroom instruction, in this course,

The amount of interaction with other students

Increased / Somewhat Increased / No Change / Somewhat Decreased / Decreased

The quality of interaction with other students

Increased / Somewhat Increased / No Change / Somewhat Decreased / Decreased

The amount you learnt about the other students

Increased / Somewhat Increased / No Change / Somewhat Decreased / Decreased

The amount of interaction with instructor

Increased / Somewhat Increased / No Change / Somewhat Decreased / Decreased

97
The quality of interaction with instructor
Increased / Somewhat Increased / No Change / Somewhat Decreased / Decreased

The amount you learnt about the instructor

Increased / Somewhat Increased / No Change / Somewhat Decreased / Decreased

The amount of knowledge you have gained

Increased / Somewhat Increased / No Change / Somewhat Decreased / Decreased

The quality of your learning experience

Increased / Somewhat Increased / No Change / Somewhat Decreased / Decreased

The motivation to participate in class activities

Increased / Somewhat Increased / No Change / Somewhat Decreased / Decreased

Technology

How easy was it for you to use technology (WebCT) to participate in this course?
Easy / Somewhat easy / Somewhat difficult / Difficult

Your familiarity with computer technology

Increased / Somewhat Increased / No Change / Somewhat Decreased / Decreased

On average, how many hours per week have you spent working on this course? (Include time
spent reading, completing projects and assignments, studying for quizzes, or discussing the
course content with the instructor or classmates.)

1 -5 hours 6 - 10 hours 11 - 15 hours 16 - 20 hours 21 - 40 hours More than 40

hours

On average, regardless of whether you posted a message or not, how often did you access the
course web site each week?

a. once a week
b. twice a week
c. three times a week
d. four times a week
e. five or more times a week

On average, how often did you post a message to the Discussion Board each week?

a. once a week
b. twice a week
c. three times a week
d. four times a week
e. five or more times a week

Overall Evaluation of the Learning Experience

98
How would you rate your overall educational experience in taking this course?
Poor / Satisfactory / Good / Very Good / Excellent

Would you rate your experiences with this course as: Successful / Not successful

If successful, what aspect of the course most contributed to its success?

If not successful, what aspect of the course was most problematic?

The best thing about this course was:

This course can be improved by:

99
 APPENDIX C

MID-SEMESTER EVALUATION OF BLENDED COURSES

100
1. How would you rate your overall educational experience in taking this course?

Poor / Satisfactory / Good / Very Good / Excellent

2. How would you compare the value of the online vs. the face-to-face part of the class
to date?

The online part is more successful / About the Same / The face-to-face part is more
successful

3. Compared to traditional face-to-face course, how effective is this blended class?

1 Much less
2
3
4 About the same
5
6
7 Much more

4. Compared to an entirely online course, how effective is this blended class?

1 Much less
2
3
4 About the same
5
6
7 Much more

5. What helped you learn the most in this course so far?

6. What is the least helpful to your learning in this course?

7. I have the following suggestions for improving this course:

101
 APPENDIX D

FACULTY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

102
A: MIDSEMESTER ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS FOR THE FACULTY

1. Over the past few weeks, what challenges (pedagogical, technical, etc.) have you faced?
Were these challenges resolved? If so, how? If not, when and how do you anticipate
resolution?

2. What challenges have your students faced? Were these challenges resolved? How?

3. What positive experiences have occurred in the past few weeks? When did the students
seem particularly engaged? What worked well from your perspective? Why?

4. Have you had any negative experiences? What didnt work well for you? Why?
What areas need improvement? How could these improvements be made (consider long-term
vs. short-term possibilities)?

5. How would you evaluate your students' academic performance for the last few weeks? Did
the students meet the primary learning objectives?

6. How do you perceive the quality and quantity of student-student and student-teacher
interactions (discussion postings, emails, in-class questions, etc.) in the different class
formats?

7. How would you assess student collaboration in the last few weeks? Have you encountered
any issues (technical, social, etc.) that can make it difficult for some students to work with
other students?

8. What is your perception of the workload for you and for the students?

103
B: END-OF-SEMESTER ASSESSMENT OF THE BLENDED EXPERIENCE:
QUESTIONS FOR THE FACULTY

1. What challenges (pedagogical, technical, etc.) did you face during the semester? Were
these challenges resolved? If so, how? If not, when and how do you anticipate resolution?

2. What challenges did your students have to face during the semester? Were these challenges
resolved? How?

3. What positive experiences occurred during the semester? When did the students seem
particularly engaged? What worked well from your perspective? Why?

4. Did you have any negative experiences? What didnt work well for you? Why?

5. Is your face-to-face class different from the online and blended courses in terms of exams,
assignments, readings? Please include a copy of the syllabus of your face-to-face section.

6. How would you evaluate your students' academic performance during the semester in the
different sections? Did the students meet the primary learning objectives?

7.1. How did you perceive the quality and quantity of student-teacher interactions (discussion
postings, e-mails, in-class questions, etc.) in the various class formats?

7.2. How did the students in your face-to-face section contact you about course content and
other (technical, social, logistical, etc.) issues? (during class, before/after class in person, e-
mail, phone, fax, etc.) Did they seem to have a preference for any of these communication
tools?

7.3. How did the students in your online section contact you about course content and other
(technical, social, logistical, etc.) issues? (e-mail within WebCT, e-mail outside WebCT,
WebCT discussion board, phone, fax, etc.) Did they seem to have a preference for any of
these communication tools?

7.4. How did the students in your blended section contact you about course content and other
(technical, social, logistical, etc.) issues? (during class, before/after class, e-mail within

104
WebCT, e-mail outside WebCT, WebCT discussion board, phone, fax, etc.) Did they seem to
have a preference for any of these communication tools?

8.1. How would you assess student collaboration in the different class formats? Did you
encounter any issues (technical, social, etc.) that made it difficult for some students to work
with other students?

8.2. Did you perceive the existence of a learning community among the students in any of the
sections?

9. What was your perception of the workload for you and for the students in the different
class formats?

10. What areas of your blended section need improvement? How could these improvements
be made (consider long-term vs. short-term possibilities)?

105
 APPENDIX F

ATTITUDE TOWARD SUBJECT SUBSCALES

106
Affect -- positive and negative feelings concerning the subject matter:

I will like this course.

I will feel insecure when I have to do the assignments for this course.

This subject makes me feel anxious or uncomfortable.

I will be under stress during these classes.

I will enjoy class discussions.

I am scared by this subject.

I find the topic of this course very interesting.

Cognitive Competence -- attitudes about intellectual knowledge and skills when applied
to the subject matter:

I will have trouble understanding this subject because of how I think.

I will find it difficult to understand the concepts of this subject.

I can learn this subject.

I am knowledgeable about the topic of this course.

I am confident that I will do well in this course.

Value -- attitudes about the usefulness, relevance, and worth of the subject matter in
personal and professional life:

This course should be a required part of my professional training.

The knowledge and skills I will gain in this course will make me more employable.

This course does not fit into my overall educational needs.

The knowledge and skills I will gain in this course will be useful in my everyday life.

I will have no application of this subject in my profession.

This subject is irrelevant in my life.

107
Difficulty -- attitudes about the difficulty of the subject:

This is a complicated subject.

This is a subject quickly learned by most people.

Learning this subject requires a great deal of discipline.

Most people have to learn a new way of thinking to do well in this course.

I will find it difficult to understand the concepts of this subject.

108
 REFERENCES

Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.),

Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 15-44). Athabasca University. Retrieved

May 15, 2009, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch1.html

Anderson, T. D. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments

and research questions. In M. G. Moore and W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of

distance education (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and

practice of online learning (pp. 45-74). Athabasca University. Retrieved May 15,

2009, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch2.html

Anderson, T. & Garrison, T. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and

responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 7-

112). Madison, WI: Atwood.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with

Internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24, 32-54.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2004). Learning to learn online: A study of perceptual changes between

multiple online course experiences. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 169-182.

Atherton, J. S. (2003). Learning and teaching: Deep and surface learning. Retrieved May 15,

2009, from http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/deepsurf.htm

109
Barrett, R., Rainer, A., & Marczyk, O. (2007). Managed learning environments and an

attendance crisis? Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 5(1), 1-9.

Bates, A. (1991). Interactivity as a criterion for media selection in distance education. Never

Too Far, 16, 5-9.

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning. New York: Academic

Press.

Biner, P.M., Welsh, K.D., Barone, N.M., Summers, M., & Dean, R.S. (1997). The impact of

remote-site group size on students satisfaction and relative performance in interactive

telecourses. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 23-33.

Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in

studies into students experiences of blended learning. Internet and Higher Education,

10, 231-244.

Burnside, R. M. (2001). E-learnings missing ingredient. Corporate Universities

International, 7(5), 1-10.

Campbell, E. (1998). Teaching strategies to foster deep versus surface learning.

Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/cut/options/Nov_98/TeachingStrategies_en.htm

Chen, C. C. & Jones, K. T. (2007). Blended learning vs. traditional classroom settings:

Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA accounting course.

Journal of Educators Online, 4(1), 1-15. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.thejeo.com/Volume4Number1/JonesFinal.pdf

110
Cuthrell, K., & Lyon, A. (2007). Instructional strategies: What do online students prefer?

MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4, 357-362.

DeLacey, B. J., & Leonard, D. A. (2002). Case study on technology and distance in education

at the Harvard Business School. Educational Technology and Society, 5(2), 13-28.

De Verneil, M. & Berge, Z. L. (2000). Going online: Guidelines for faculty in higher

education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6, 227-242.

Dewar, T. & Whittington, D. (2004). Calliope learning: Blended learning research report.

Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://www.calliopelearning.com/papers/blended.pdf

Fleming, N. (2009). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies. Retrieved May 15, 2009,

from http://www.vark-learn.com

Fulford, C. P. & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in

distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.

Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and the theory of instruction. New York:

Harcourt Brace.

Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The

role of reflective enquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In: Bourne, J. & Moore, J.

C. (Eds.), Elements of quality: Practice and direction, Vol. 4 in the Sloan-C Series,

(pp. 47-58). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Garrison, D. R. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for

research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.

111
Garrison, D. R. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2004). Critical factors in student satisfaction and

success: Facilitating student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry. In J.

Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the

mainstream, Vol. 5 in the Sloan-C Series, (pp. 47-58). Needham, MA: The Sloan

Consortium.

Garrison, R., Kanuka, H., & Hawes, D. (2002). Blended learning in a research university.

Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://commons.ucalgary.ca/documents/BlendedLearning_1.pdf

Garrison, D. R. & Shale, D. (1990). A new framework and perspective. In D. R. Garrison &

D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp. 123-133).

Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger.

Garrison, R. D. & Vaughan, N. D. (2007). Blended learning in higher education:

Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gayeski, D. (1998). How to use the Internet and intranets as learning and performance tools.

In M. Silberman (Ed.), The 1998 McGraw-Hill Training and Development

Sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gerbic, P. (2006). On-campus students learning in asynchronous environments. Doctoral

dissertation, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student

learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.

112
Hara, N. & Kling, R. (1999). Students frustrations with a web-based distance education

course. First Monday, 4(12). Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/

Harasim, L. M. (1989). On-line education: A new domain. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.),

Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education (pp. 50-62). Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Havice, W. L. (1999). College students' attitudes toward oral lectures and integrated media

presentations. Journal of Technology Studies. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Winter-Spring-1999/havice.html

Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., & Robins, J. (2000). Community development among

distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 6(1).

Heath, R. L. & Bryant, J. (1992). Human communication theory and research: Concepts,

contexts, & challenges. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in

distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for

practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

Hodge, D., LePore, P., Pasquesi, K., & Hirsh, M. (2008). It takes a curriculum: Preparing

students for research and creative work. Liberal Education, 94(3). Retrieved May 15,

2009, from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-su08/le-su08_ItTakes.cfm

Holmberg, B. (1983). Distance education as an academic discipline. ICDE Bulletin, 2, 50-

53.

113
Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. London: Routledge.

Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (1997). Building communication theory.

Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Jaffee, D. (1998). Institutionalized resistance to asynchronous learning networks. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(2). Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v2n2/pdf/v2n2_jaffee.pdf

Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(10),

28-33.

Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Kearsley G. & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-

based teaching and learning. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm

Keefe, T. J. (2003). Using technology to enhance a course: The importance of interaction.

Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 24-34. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666&ID=EQM0314

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Kelly, E. F., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P., & Chapman, D. (1976). The development and

use of the Adjective Rating Scale: A measure of attitude toward courses and

programs. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational

114
 Research Association, San Francisco.

Kelsey, D. K. & D'souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance: Does

interaction matter? Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer72/kelsey72.html

Kim, E. C. & Kellough, R. D. (1987). A resource guide for secondary school teaching:

Planning for competence. New York: Macmillan.

Kinsel, E., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, R. (2004). Student role adjustment in online

environments: From the mouths of online babes. Paper presented at the 20th Annual

Conference of Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning. Chicago: Follet.

LaRose, R. & Whitten, P. (2000). Re-thinking instructional immediacy for web courses: A

social cognitive exploration. Communication Education, 49, 320-338.

Laurillard, D. (1997). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of

educational technology. London: Routledge.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, E. L. & Seymour, E. (1997). Attitudinal survey. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.flaguide.org/extra/download/cat/attitude/attitude.pdf

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

115
Mantyla, K. (2001). Blending e-learning: The power is in the mix. Alexandria, VA: American

Society for Training and Development.

Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2006). Elearning: The key concepts. London: Routledge.

McDermott, R.P. (1999). On becoming labeled: The story of Adam. In Murphy, P. (Ed.).

Learners, learning and assessment. London: Paul Chapman.

Miller, B. (2003). Face-to-face, online, or a hybrid: Students reactions to multiple course

delivery modes. Syllabus. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.syllabus.com/summer2003/pdf/T10.pdf

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education,

3(2), 1-6.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.) Theoretical

Principles of Distance Education. New York: Routledge.

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2008). Promoting engagement for all

students: The imperative to look within2008 Results. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2008_Results/docs/withhold/NSSE2008_Results_revised_1

1-14-2008.pdf

Neville, K. & Heavin, C. (2004). E-learning: Academias approach to the CRM challenge.

Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.ebusinessforum.gr/content/downloads/57_Neville_Heavin.pdf

116
Osborne, V. (2000). Identifying at-risk students: An assessment instrument for distributed

learning courses in higher education. Doctoral Dissertation. University of North

Texas, Denton.

Osguthorpe, R. T. & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and

directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Phipps, R. & Merisotis, J. (1999). What is the difference? : A review of contemporary

research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Retrieved May

15, 2009, from http://www.ihep.org/Pubs/PDF/Difference.pdf

Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and

performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1),

21-40. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from

http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/pdf/v6n1_picciano.pdf

Rivera, J. C. & Rice, M. L. (2002). A comparison of student outcomes & satisfaction between

traditional & web based course offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning

Administration, 5(3). Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/rivera53.html

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community.

Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197-211.

Rovai, A. P. & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A

comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International

117
 Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved May 15, 2009,

from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v5.2/rovai-jordan.html

Saba F. & Shearer, R. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of

distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36-56.

Saunders, P. & Werner, K. (2004). Finding the right blend for effective learning. Retrieved

May 15, 2009, from http://www.wmich.edu/teachlearn/new/blended.htm

Schau, C. (1999). Survey of Attitudes Toward Statistics. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.unm.edu/%7ecschau/satshomepage.htm

Schau, C., Stevens, J., Dauphinee, T. L., & Del Vecchio, A. (1995). The development and

validation of the Survey of Attitudes toward Statistics. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 55(5), 868-875.

Sener, J. & Humbert, J. (2003). Student satisfaction with online learning: An expanding

universe. In Bourne J. & Moore, J. C. (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education:

Practice and Direction, Volume 4 in the Sloan-C Series, (pp. 245-260). Needham,

MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of

blended learning: A review of UK literature and practice. Retrieved January 6, 2009

from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/projects/detail/lr_2006_sharpe

118
Shea, P. K., Swan, K., Frederickson, E., & Pickett, A. (2002). Student satisfaction and

reported learning in the SUNY learning network. In Bourne, J. & Moore, J. C. (Eds.),

Elements of Quality Online Education, Volume 3 in the Sloan-C Series, (pp. 145-155).

Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). Theoretical approaches to differences between

media. In J. Short, E. Williams, & B. Christie (Eds.), The social psychology of

telecommunications (pp. 61-76). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.

Sims, R. (1999). Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner-designer communication.

Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 257-272. Retrieved May 15,

2009, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet15/sims.html

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning:

Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher

Education, 7, 59-70.

Sparrow, S. (2003). Blended learning makes mark. Training Magazine.

Stacey, E. & Gerbic, P. (2008). Success factors for blended learning. In Hello! Where are you

in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008.

Retrieved May 15, 2009, from

http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/stacey.pdf

119
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and

perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-

331.

Tabor, S. (2007). Narrowing the distance: Implementing a hybrid learning model for

information security education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 47-57.

Thweatt, K. S. & McCroskey, J. C. (1996). Teacher nonimmediacy and misbehavior:

Unintentional negative communication. Communication Research Reports, 13(2),

198-204.

Vamosi, A.R., Pierce, B.G., & Slotkin, M.H. (2004). Distance learning in an accounting

principles course: Student satisfaction and perceptions of efficacy. Journal of

Education and Business Research, 66, 360-366.

Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International

Journal on ELearning, 6(1), 81-94.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal

of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.

Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting communities of practice: A survey of community-orientated

technologies. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://www.ewenger.com/tech

Wilson, B. (1999). The dangers of theory-based design. ITFORUM, Paper #31. Retrieved

May 15, 2009, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper31/paper31.html

120
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and

field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of

Educational Research, 47, 1-64.

Woods, R. H. & Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved

May 15, 2009, from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v5.2/woods-baker.html

Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by

exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

121