Practical Research
Research Problem
Several research comparing conventional and online education
have found that online learning is just as successful and
beneficial as traditional learning. According to certain learning
and communication theories, a third option – blended learning,
which combines distance and face-to-face learning – has the
potential to deliver even greater outcomes than either option
alone. Blending has the advantage of combining the benefits of
face-to-face (closer interactions, ability for fast feedback) with
online learning (asynchronous setting, technology, and
interactive features). Blended learning, on the other hand, isn't
a one-size-fits-all approach (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2004).
There are a variety of ways to combine online and face-to-face
learning, ranging from totally face-to-face to entirely online
education. Depending on the content and the learning context,
the ideal balance might change. Although many case studies
and guidelines on blended learning have been published, there
are only a few research that compare blended learning to
conventional and online learning. The majority of these
comparison studies look at only one course and focus on the
correlations between only a few factors. Large-scale research of
courses in many subject areas are needed to acquire a better
knowledge of what makes blended learning successful and what
are the best mixes of synchronous and asynchronous learning
events that enhance learning in diverse disciplines.
Research Problem

• Why should a hybrid class provide different (and maybe better) learning outcomes and
student happiness than traditional face-to-face or fully online classrooms in terms of
learning outcomes and student satisfaction? Interaction is one of the main aspects in the
learning process, according to previous research and specific learning and communication
theories, and it should be the subject of analysis when comparing various kinds of
education. Blended learning is anticipated to boost the frequency and quality of
interactions by combining synchronous and asynchronous learning activities, as well as
chances for collaborative and problem-based learning. The purpose of this study was to
see how interactions differed across face-to-face, blended, and totally online classrooms,
and how the number of these interactions influenced the efficacy of these courses in
terms of students' views of course success and overall learning satisfaction.
 • Blended learning is becoming increasingly popular in both academics and the
workplace. Each one has its own motivations (Dewar & Whittington, 2004). The
capacity to match learning styles; generate individually personalized solutions;
minimize class time; enhance learning rate; and use the investments previously
made in re-usable training resources are the most essential reasons for developing
blended solutions in the corporate sector (Sparrow, 2003). The early cost-cutting
rationale for e-learning (Gayeski, 1998; Wilson, 1999) has lately been supplanted by
a more nuanced understanding of how to incorporate technology into an overall
learning strategy in academia. Because it gives educational richness and access to

Statement of information, social connection, and personal agency, blended learning is sometimes
preferred.

Problem
• It can also save money and make revisions easier (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). 2
Another reason for blended learning's growing popularity is that there has been a
natural trend to combine features of both extremes – for example, adding certain
online elements to conventional face-to-face sessions and integrating limited
classroom time in online courses. In 2000, the ASTD Benchmarking Service, which
included over 950 commercial organizations, identified an increasing trend away
from e-learning and toward in-person training (Saunders & Werner, 2004). While
Mantyla (2001) discovered that learners prefer a live teacher, many firms did not
abandon virtual learning entirely, instead finding methods to combine technology
with in-class learning.
 • . Traditional classroom conversations, in which more outgoing students tend to
dominate, might annoy introverted pupils. Furthermore, typical lecture-based
courses may fail to encourage deep learning since conversations are shallow,
spontaneous, and constrained (Rovai & Jordan, 2004). (Campbell, 1998). E-learning,
on the other hand, allows for more time and location flexibility as well as improved
communication and interaction possibilities (Anderson, 2004). E-learning also
promotes the 3 constructivist instructional design paradigm, which emphasizes the
significance of individual discovery and production of knowledge, as a result of its
enhanced access to an ever-growing amount of online resources (Jonassen, 1991).
The use of collaborative written communication allows for simultaneous critical
Statement of reflection and dialogue, which leads to higher-order (or deep) learning results
(Kinsel, Cleveland-Innes, & Garrison, 2004).

Problem • Blended learning may be an appropriate alternative for professors and students
who are uncomfortable with technology-based education and want to ease into it.
Blended learning might also be "a risk-free and low-resistance way to introduce
asynchronous online learning at campus-based colleges" (Garrison &
ClevelandInnes, 2004). Blended learning has the ability to improve learning
experiences by combining the benefits of online training with traditional classroom
settings; nevertheless, "the magic is in the mix," and there is no one-size-fits-all
recipe for every learning scenario. The five blended courses produced at the
University of North Texas presented a fantastic chance to compare the effectiveness
of face-to-face, online, and mixed training on a broad scale.
 • . This study examined large-enrollment
undergraduate courses and focused on the
quality and quantity of student-student,
studentinstructor, and student-content
interactions and the impact of these
Statement of interactions on the learning experience in
the several learning environments.
Problem Interrelationships among other variables,
such as students’ perceived interactions and
changes in their attitude toward subject
were also examined.
Questions

What are the student characteristics and blended learning design

features for an effective blended learning environment?

Which factors (among the learner characteristics and blended learning

design features) predict student satisfaction, learning outcomes,
intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction?
Framework
Design

• This research applies a quantitative design where descriptive statistics are used for the student
characteristics and design features data, t-tests for the age and gender variables to determine if they
are significant in blended learning effectiveness and regression for predictors of blended learning
effectiveness.
• This research is based on an experiment in which students participated in face-to-face and online
sessions as part of a blended learning approach. Learner characteristics/background and blended
learning design components were examined in relation to learning effectiveness using a learning
management system (Moodle). Because the outcomes are aimed at implementing blended learning
at MMU, it is a planned evaluation study design, as mentioned by Guskey (2000).
• The plan that was used to examine the various factors included face-to-face study at the start of a 17-
week semester, followed by online teaching and learning in the second half of the semester. The last
few weeks of the semester were dedicated to another face-to-face meeting to go over material
completed throughout the online sessions as well as final semester exams. Students from three
schools and one directorate of postgraduate studies were given a questionnaire with questions about
student characteristics, design aspects, and learning outcomes.
Significance

• Among the design features, technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support are predictors of learner
satisfaction while learner characteristics of self regulation and attitudes to blended learning are predictors of
satisfaction. Technology quality and interactions are the only design features predicting learner knowledge
construction, while social support, among the learner backgrounds, is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self
regulation as a learner characteristic is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation is the only learner
characteristic predicting intrinsic motivation in blended learning while technology quality, online tools and
interactions are the design features predicting intrinsic motivation. However, all the independent variables are not
significant predictors of learning performance in blended learning.
According to Hadad (2007), strong computer competence and confidence is an antecedent element for blended learning
efficacy, and this study reveals learners confident and competent enough for blended learning success. According to
Shraim and Khlaif, a lack of computer skills promotes failure in e-learning and blended learning (2010). According to
our observations, this does not pose a danger to blended learning in our scenario. Unlike Cohen et al. (2012) who found
that learners' family commitments and hours of employment might obstruct their learning process, this is not the case
here because they are drivers of the blended learning process. Learner failure and dropout of online courses have been
linked to time conflicts worsened by family, work status, and management assistance (Packham et al., 2004).
Significance

• Our findings reveal that these elements are, on the contrary, drivers of blended learning success because learners
have a healthy balance between job and study and are encouraged to study by their bosses. Learner favorable
attitudes regarding e- and mixed learning settings are success determinants, according to Selim (2007). According to
Coldwell et al. (2008), there are no statistically significant differences in age groups. We should emphasize, however,
that Coldwel et al. studied young, middle-aged, and elderly people above the age of 45, whereas we only studied
young and middle-aged people.Learner interactions at all levels are adequate, and they constitute a driving force
here, contrary to Astleitner's (2000) assertion that their absence causes learners to withdraw. According to Loukis
(2007), as technological quality, online tools are predictors of learner satisfaction and intrinsic motivation, LMS
quality, dependability, and convenience of use lead to learning efficiency.
• . As stated below, face-to-face sessions should be held on a monthly basis, which concurs with Marriot et al. (2004),
who said that learners prefer it for enhancing social interaction and communication skills. According to Menager-
Beeley (2004), strong student intrinsic motivation contributes to persistence in online courses, and it is high enough
in our study. This suggests the prospect of a successful mixed learning environment. The explanations of learner
discontent identified by Islam (2014), such as ineptitude in the use of the LMS, contradict our findings, but the ones
identified by Hara and Kling (2001), such as technical challenges and confusing course teaching, are unaffected by
our findings.
Definition of Terms

• Blended learning is a type of learning that incorporates both online and face-to-face
components. It has been refined to describe a learning solution that includes informative
and instructional aspects, synchronous and asynchronous learning, self-paced and
instructor-led learning, and a mix of four formats, media, and experiences. Online learning
is a type of remote learning that is mostly centered on asynchronous text-based
communication through the Internet. The phrases online learning, e-learning, and remote
learning are used interchangeably in this project. Traditional (or face-to-face) learning
refers to the lecture and textbook delivery methods in which the teacher and a group of
students are physically present in the same classroom. Interactions are reciprocal
occurrences that need the presence of at least two things and two actions (Wagner,
1994). Teacher-student, student-student, student-content, and student-interface
interactions are the most common forms of educational interactions (Moore, 1989;
Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994).
 • The University of North Texas began offering 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) in autumn 2005. It was made a point to have the same instructors teach all three
portions of each course, and to have the same course requirements for all three sections of
each course. Two sets of questionnaires were distributed among the students participating in

Subject and
these courses during the autumn 2005, spring 2006, and summer 2006 semesters, and two
sets of interviews were performed with the faculty members engaged in the study. Observing
the online classes and the monthly blended faculty sessions provided qualitative data. The
learning management system's student monitoring capability was used to collect data on
student internet behavior (LMS).

Instruments • Students in traditional classrooms were given paper surveys to complete, while online and
blended students were given online questionnaires to complete. The Attitude Regarding
Subject test was used to track changes in students' attitudes toward the subject matter
(Appendix A). A pre-test was given during the second week of the semester, and a post-test
was given the week before final examinations. The end-of-semester course assessment
survey (Appendix B) was given out during the final week of the semester, just before exams.
This poll gathered demographic information as well as statistics on students' general
satisfaction with their educational experience. Two open-ended questions were used to
gather feedback on the course's good and negative features.
Subject and Instruments
• The Perception of Interactions measure was included in the online version to see how blended and online students rated the
quality and quantity of their interactions in comparison to a typical face-to-face class. 29 Attitude About Topic Instrument The
Attitude Toward Subject instrument, a modified version of the Survey of Attitudes Toward Statistics, was used to compare the
findings of pre- and post-course surveys to determine changes in students' attitudes toward the subject (Schau et al., 1995). The
statements in the Attitude Toward Subject test were transformed into more generic, not subject-specific statements, because the
original instrument was developed to evaluate attitude toward statistics specifically. There are four subscales in the instrument
(Appendix A): affect, cognitive competency, value, and difficulty. The Affect subscale assesses positive and negative sentiments
about the course's subject content.
• The Cognitive Competence subscale gathers data on how people feel about their intellectual abilities and knowledge when they
are applied to a given issue. Value relates to how people feel about the subject matter's utility, significance, and value in their
personal and professional lives. Difficulty is a scale that assesses people's perceptions of how tough a subject is. With the
exception of males on the difficulty subscale, all Cronbach alpha values on the original instrument were around.80 (Appendix F).
Students' perceived interactions were measured using a slightly modified version of Picciano's (2002) Perception of Interactions
instrument. 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 using a slightly modified
version of Picciano's (2002) Perception of Interactions instrument. This tool was part of the end-of-semester course assessment
survey (Appendix B), which was also meant to get input from students on how satisfied they were with their learning experience.
Subject and Instruments
• 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 Collection and Analysis

• Quantitative and qualitative data analysis methodologies were used in the study. Four subscales were
used to assess students' attitudes regarding the subject. Each respondent's total attitude score was
calculated using a 7-point answer scale. Because higher scores reflect more positive views, the answers to
Questions 6-12, 14, 16, and 19-21 (see Appendix A) had to be reversed before the total score could be
determined. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was then conducted to see if there were any variations in
attitude toward the subject across face-to-face, online, and blended students (p.05). The Perception of
Interactions (Picciano, 2002) questionnaire was used to assess students' perceptions of interactions as
part of the end-of-semester course assessment survey (Appendix B).
• Students in blended and online classes were given nine statements about the quality and quantity of
their interactions with their peers and instructor, and they were asked to rate these statements on a 5-
point scale: 1 = increased, 2 = somewhat increased, 3 = no change, 4 = somewhat decreased, and 5 =
decreased in comparison to traditional classroom instruction. Lower scores in this item were associated
with more increased interactions. The mean differences between online and blended students were
assessed using the Independent Samples t-test after the perception of interaction scores were generated.
Data Collection and Analysis

• The Chi Square Assess of Independence was used to test the 31 connection between perceived
interactions and students' overall course evaluations. The qualitative data gathered during faculty
interviews and the end-of-semester course assessment survey's open-ended questions were
evaluated 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.