You are here:

Academic Students’ Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in a HyFlex Course: Do Delivery Modes Matter?
PROCEEDINGS

, University of Sherbrooke, Canada ; , , Laval University, Canada

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in New Orleans, LA, USA ISBN 978-1-939797-12-4 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

The Hybrid-Flexible (HyFlex) design model is a course design model that combines Hybrid learning in a Flexible way, such that students can either attend face-to-face class sessions, participate online or do both (i.e. alternate between face-to-face mode and online mode), according to their needs and availability, without learning deficits. Student satisfaction and learning outcomes (i.e. academic performance) should be the same regardless of the mode they choose. The aim of this study is to address these issues. A total of 376 students enrolled in a HyFlex information systems course responded to an online questionnaire. One-way ANOVA tests results revealed that no significant differences were found between students who chose different delivery modes on satisfaction, multiple choice test, and written exam scores. However, significant differences were observed on continuous assessment scores. The discussion relates to the importance of conducting other studies on this particular design model.

Citation

Lakhal, S., Khechine, H. & Pascot, D. (2014). Academic Students’ Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in a HyFlex Course: Do Delivery Modes Matter?. In T. Bastiaens (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 1075-1083). New Orleans, LA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 11, 2023 from .

© 2014 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abdelmalak, M. (2014). Towards Flexible Learning for Adult Students: HyFlex Design. In Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference, 2014 (1), 706-712.
  2. Allen. I.E., Seaman. J., & Garret. R. (2007). Blending in. The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. The Sloan Consortium. Retrived June 1 st, 2014, from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/Blending_In.pdf Beatty, B.J. (2007). Hybrid classes with flexible participation options–If you build it. How will they come?. In Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Convention (AECT), 14.
  3. Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P.A., Fiset, M., & Euan, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of educational research, 74(3), 379-439.
  4. Crocker. L., & Algina. J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
  5. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3). 297-334.
  6. Educause (2010). 7 Things you should know about the HyFlex course model. Retrived May 31, 2014, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7066.pdf Field. A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, Sage.
  7. Fillion G. (2005). L’intégration des TIC dans la formation universitaire: Une étude des résultats éducationnels des étudiants dans les contextes de présence et de non présence en classe. Doctoral dissertation, Université Laval, Quebec City.
  8. Hobbs V.M., & Osburn D.D. (1989). Distance Learning Evaluation Study Report II: An Inter-and Intra-State Comparison. A Study of North Dakota and Missouri Schools Implementing German I by Satellite, ERIC document #317195. 1989.
  9. Khechine, H., Lakhal, S., Pascot, D., & Bytha, A. (2014). UTAUT Model for Blended Learning: The Role of Gender and Age in the Intention to Use Webinars. Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 10, 33-52
  10. Kyei-Blankson. L., & Godwyll. F. (2010). An Examination of Learning Outcomes in Hyflex Learning Environments. In World Conference on E-Learning inCorporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (Vol. 2010, No. 1, pp. 532-535).
  11. Lakhal, S., Khechine, H., & Pascot, D. (2013). Student behavioural intentions to use desktop videoconferencing in a distance course: integration of autonomy to the UTAUT model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(2), 93-121.
  12. Miller. J., Risser. M., & Griffiths, R. (2013). Student Choice, Instructor Flexibility: Moving Beyond the Blended Instructional Model. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 1(1), 8-24.
  13. Nunnally J.C., & Durham R.L. (1975). Validity, Reliability and Special Problems of Measurement in Evaluative Research In E.L. Struening and M. Guttentag (Eds.) Handbook of Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
  14. Piccoli G., Ahmad R., & Ives B. (2001). Web-Based Virtual Learning Environments: A Research Framework and a Preliminary Assessment of Effectiveness in Basic IT Skills Training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401-426.
  15. U.S. Department of Education (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A metaanalysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved June 15, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections