Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Huneidi, A., & Schreurs, J. (2013). Constructivism based blended learning in higher education, world summit on knowledge society 2011. CCIS, 278, 581–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J. B., M. R. Godfrey, M. Johnson, B. L. Pollack, B. Niendorf, & Wresch, W. (2009). Research in online and blended learning in the business disciplines: Key findings and possible future directions, Internet and Higher Education. 12, 71–87

  • Alrushiedat, N., & Olfman, L. (2013). Aiding participation and engagement in a blended learning environment. Journal of Information Systems Education, 24(2), 133–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). London: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2005). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local design. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner’s self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bygstad, B. & Munkvold, B. E. (2011). In search of mechanisms. conducting a critical realist data analysis, thirty second international conference on information systems, 6 December 2011 Shanghai: ICIS.

  • Castle, S. R., & McGuire, C. J. (2010). An analysis of student self-assessment of online blended, and face-to-face learning environments: Implications for sustainable education delivery, international education studies. 3(3):36-40.

  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation Design & Analysis Issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, D. J. (1992). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction a conversation (pp. 35–44). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E. (2003). Transfer as the productive use of acquired knowledge, skills, and motivations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(12), 142–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirer, V., & Sahin, I. (2009). Effect of blended learning environment on transfer of learning: An experimental study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 518–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, C. (2011). A Comparison of Traditional And Blended Learning In Introductory Principles of Accounting Course, American Journal of Business Education. 4(9), 1–10

  • Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction a conversation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • EL-Deghaidy, H., & Nouby, A. (2008). Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher-education programme. Computers & Education, 51(3), 988–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. A., & Bliuc, A. (2016). An exploration into first-year university students’ approaches to inquiry and online learning technologies in blended environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 970–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. A., Pardo, A., & Han, F. (2016). Quality in blended learning environments – Significant differences in how students approach learning collaborations. Computers & Education, 102(102), 90–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley, A., Jain, A., & Thomson, D. (2011). Blended learning in finance: Comparing student perceptions of lectures, tutorials and online learning environments across different year levels. Economic Papers, 30(1), 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies. Internet and Higher Education, 18(18), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, L. A. O., & Duart, J. M. (2012). A hybrid approach to university subject learning activities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 18(18), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadjerrouit, S. (2008). Towards a blended learning model for teaching and learning computer programming: A case study. Informatics in Education., 7(2), 181–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, J., & Tee, S. W. (2010). Smart utilization of tertiary instructional modes. Computers & Education, 54(54), 1036–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, J., & Tee, S. W. (2013). Blended teaching and learning: A two-way systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(5), 748–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartono, E., Monk, E.F., & Serva, M. (2015). Rethinking the introduction to computing class: Follow-up and reporting results from a blended-learning model, AIS educator association 17th Annual Conference (AISEA), June 2015, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

  • Jones, N., Chew, E., Jones, C., & Lau, A. (2009). Over the worst or at the eye of the storm? Education and Training, 51(1), 6–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, N. K., & Simmers, C. S. (2013). Adapting the marketing educational environment for multi-cultural millennials: The Chinese experience. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal., 17(3), 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: AAC&U.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindorff, M., & McKeown, T. (2013). An aid to transition? The perceived utility of online resources for on-campus first year management students. Education and Training, 55(4/5), 414–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Perez, M. V., Perez-Lopez, M. C., & Rodriguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56(56), 818–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Perez, M. V., Perez-Lopez, M. C., Rodriguez-Ariza, L., & Argente-Linares, E. (2013). The influence of the use of technology on student outcomes in a blended learning context. Education Technical Research Development., 61(61), 625–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manwaring, K., Larsen, R., Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Halverson, L. R. (2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. The Internet and Higher Education., 35(35), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 1, 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, W. A., Perini, E., Rohlf, V., Toukhsati, S., Conduit, R., & Sanson, G. (2013). A blended learning lecture delivery model for large and diverse undergraduate cohorts. Computers & Education, 64(64), 116–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information Technology in Organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgerby, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Accounting Education: An International Journal., 22(1), 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owston, R. (2013). Blended learning policy and implementation: Introduction to the special issue. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist Approach. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. L. (2006). Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research. Information and Organization, 16, 191–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockwell, B. R., Stockwell, M. S., Cennamo, M., & Jiang, E. (2015). Blended learning improves science education. Cell., 162, 933–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynan, B., Ryan, Y., & Lamont-Mills, A. (2013). Examining workload models in online and blended teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yudko, E., Hirokawa, R., & Chi, R. (2008). Attitudes, beliefs, and attendance in a hybrid course. Computers & Education, 50(50), 1217–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Y., Au, W., & Yates, G. (2016). University students’ self-control and self-regulated learning in a blended course. Internet and Higher Education, 30, 54–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and MIS, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19176, USA

    Ellen F. Monk

  2. Center for Teaching and Assessment of Learning, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19176, USA

    Kevin R. Guidry & Kathleen Langan Pusecker

  3. Applied Economics and Statistics, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19176, USA

    Thomas W. Ilvento

Authors
  1. Ellen F. Monk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin R. Guidry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen Langan Pusecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas W. Ilvento
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen F. Monk.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Monk, E.F., Guidry, K.R., Pusecker, K.L. et al. Blended learning in computing education: It’s here but does it work?. Educ Inf Technol 25, 83–104 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09920-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09920-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation