Blended Learning in STEM and Non-STEM Courses: How do Student Performance and Perceptions Compare?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i3.2151Keywords:
STEM and non-STEM, blended learning, higher education, student performance, student perceptionsAbstract
Examined in this study is the question of whether students in STEM courses perform better and have more positive perceptions than students in non-STEM courses, when both are offered in the blended format. As part of a blended learning initiative, 6 STEM and 8 non-STEM university courses were redesigned using the blended format. Students (n = 318) were surveyed on perceptions of their blended experience and courses grades were compared. Results indicated that STEM students performed significantly higher than non-STEM students; however, STEM students did not perceive their courses as positively as non-STEM students. The conclusion was that focusing blended learning course redesign in STEM fields in higher education may be advantageous, although more research is needed to confirm the findings and to investigate why student perceptions were relatively low for STEM students.
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530060.pdf
Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T., (2018). Blended learning and traditional learning: A comparative study of college mechanics courses. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9748-9
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. In P. Kandlbinder, HERDSA Review of Higher Education Vol. 1 (pp. 5-22). Hammondville, Australia: HERDSA.
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
Brooks, D. C. (2016). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology 2016 (Research Report). Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2016/6/~/media/files/library/2016/10/ers1605.pdf
Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5), 7-11. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ996400
Castaño‐Muñoz, J., Duart, J. M., & Sancho‐Vinuesa, T. (2014). The Internet in face-to-face higher education: Can interactive learning improve academic achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 149-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12007
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v3n3p36
Chen, X. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009161.pdf
Choi, E. M. (2013). Applying inverted classroom to software engineering education. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3(2), 121-125.
Çirak Kurt, S., Yildirim, İ., & Cücük, E. (2018). The effects of blended learning on student achievement: A meta-analysis study. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 1-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2017034685
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Day, J. A., & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human-computer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4), 420–431. http://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2006.879792
Dolan, E. L., Lepage, G. P., Peacock, S. M., Simmons, E. H., Sweeder, R., & Wieman, C. (2016). Improving undergraduate STEM education at research universities: A collection of case studies. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation for Science Advancement. Retrieved from https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/STEM%20Initiative%20Images/RCSA2016%20(4).pdf
Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk and C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195-206). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Forte, J. A., & Root, V. (2011). To ITV or not to ITV: A comparison of hybrid and web-enhanced approaches to teaching a macro-course in human behavior in the social environment. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21(1), 82-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.535732
Garrison, R. D., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk and C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Green, M., (2007). Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966-2004 (NSF 07-307). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Goode, C. T., Lamoreaux, M., Atchison, K. J., Jeffress, E. C., Lynch, H. L., & Sheehan, E. (2018). Quantitative skills, critical thinking, and writing mechanics in blended versus face-to-face versions of a research methods and statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 45(2), 124-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318762873
Gundlach, E., Richards, K. A. R., Nelson, D., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2015). A comparison of student attitudes, statistical reasoning, performance, and perceptions for web-augmented traditional, fully online, and flipped sections of a statistical literacy class. Journal of Statistics Education, 23(1), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2015.11889723
Hill, T., Chidambaram, L., & Summers, J. D. (2017). Playing ‘catch up’ with blended learning: Performance impacts of augmenting classroom instruction with online learning. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(1), 54-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1189964
Kokkelenberg, E. C., & Sinha, E. (2010). Who succeeds in STEM studies? An analysis of Binghamton University undergraduate students. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 935-946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.016
Kumrow, D. E. (2007). Evidence-based strategies of graduate students to achieve success in a hybrid web-based course. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(3), 140–145.
Lederman, D. (2019, March 8). The mood brightens: A survey of presidents. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/2019-survey-college-and-university-presidents.
Lian, J., & He, F. (2013). Improved performance of students instructed in a hybrid PBL format. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 41(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20666
Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27-42. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ842695.pdf
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.
Melton, B. F., Bland, H. W., & Chopak-Foss, J. (2009). Achievement and satisfaction in blended learning versus traditional general health course designs. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1-13. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=ij-sotl
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006-07. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf
Rahman, A. (2017). A blended learning approach to teach fluid mechanics in engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(3), 252-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1153044
Schunn, C. D., & Patchan, M. (2009). An evaluation of accelerated learning in the CMU open learning initiative course Logic & Proofs. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh. Retreived from http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/projects/apros/overview/documents/landp_report.pdf
Shanahan, M., Burke, L. E. C., & Francis, K. (2016). Using a boundary object perspective to reconsider the meaning of STEM in Canadian context. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(2), 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1166296
Spanjers, I. A., Könings, K. D., Leppink, J., Verstegen, D. M., de Jong, N., Czabanowska, K., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2015). The promised land of blended learning: Quizzes as a moderator. Educational Research Review, 15, 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.05.001
Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107, 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.003
Uzun, A., & Senturk, A. (2010). Blending makes the difference: Comparison of blended and traditional instruction on students’ performance and attitudes in computer literacy. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(3), 196-207. Retreived from http://www.cedtech.net/articles/13/131.pdf
Vargas-Madriz, F., & Nocente, N. (2016). Student engagement and satisfaction between different undergraduate blended learning courses. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2016 (pp. 1443-1448). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.002
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836-1884.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
