Smart utilization of tertiary instructional modes

This empirical research surveys first year tertiary business students across different campuses regarding their perceived views concerning traditional, blended and flexible instructional approaches. A structural equation modeling approach shows traditional instructional modes deliver lower levels of student-perceived learning quality, learning experience and learning skills. A combination of on-line and face-to-face learning approaches, embedded across each course, yields far higher levels of total learning effects, and to explain differences in instructional approaches, a 'Cone of Learning' continuum is presented and discussed. Theoretical and practical research implications, and the measurement, theoretical and management aspects of future research options are presented. Tertiary institutions can adopt the approaches herein to assist in the development and build of smart targeted learning solutions - ones more in-line with the perceived needs of their respective student year levels and groups.

[1]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice , 2000, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Katerina Georgouli,et al.  A Framework for Adopting LMS to Introduce e-Learning in a Traditional Course , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[3]  Szu-Yuan Sun,et al.  Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions , 2005, Comput. Educ..

[4]  John A. Hamilton Building and managing modern e-services , 2007 .

[5]  Steven Hornik,et al.  An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Lydia Kyei-Blankson,et al.  Nontraditional Students’ Perception of a Blended Course: Integrating Synchronous Online Discussion and Face-to-Face Instruction , 2008 .

[7]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[8]  Richard E. Boyatzis,et al.  From learning styles to learning skills: the executive skills profile , 1995 .

[9]  J. Arbaugh,et al.  Technological and Structural Characteristics, Student Learning and Satisfaction with Web-Based Courses , 2002 .

[10]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperative Learning and Social Interdependence Theory , 2002 .

[11]  Judith E. Miller,et al.  Are four heads better than one? A comparison of cooperative and traditional teaching formats in an introductory biology course , 1997 .

[12]  Diane Hamilton,et al.  Factors Affecting Student Performance and Satisfaction: Online versus Traditional Course Delivery , 2005, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Gwyneth Hughes,et al.  Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention , 2007 .

[14]  Ömer Delialioglu,et al.  Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[15]  M. Moore Editorial: Three types of interaction , 1989 .

[16]  Niels Blunch,et al.  Introduction to Structural Equation Modelling Using SPSS and Amos , 2008 .

[17]  Janette R. Hill,et al.  Flexible Learning Environments: Leveraging the Affordances of Flexible Delivery and Flexible Learning , 2006 .

[18]  Ya-Ching Lee,et al.  An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system , 2006, Online Inf. Rev..

[19]  Joseph D. Novak,et al.  Learning creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools , 1998 .

[20]  Rolph E. Anderson,et al.  Multivariate data analysis with readings (2nd ed.) , 1986 .

[21]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  On the evaluation of structural equation models , 1988 .

[22]  Eyal Gamliel,et al.  Online versus traditional teaching evaluation: mode can matter , 2005 .

[23]  E. Jamelske,et al.  Measuring the impact of a university first-year experience program on student GPA and retention , 2009 .

[24]  James C. Taylor Flexible Delivery: The Globalisation of Lifelong Learning , 1998 .

[25]  John A. Hamilton,et al.  Service value networks: Into practice , 2007 .

[26]  Barbara Flood,et al.  An exploration of the learning approaches of prospective professional accountants in Ireland , 2008 .

[27]  Clyde W. Holsapple,et al.  Defining, Assessing, and Promoting E‐Learning Success: An Information Systems Perspective* , 2006 .

[28]  Barbara M. Byrne,et al.  Structural equation modeling with AMOS , 2010 .

[29]  J. Arbaugh,et al.  A Structural Equation Model of Predictors for Effective Online Learning , 2005 .

[30]  J. McCarthy,et al.  Active Learning Techniques Versus Traditional Teaching Styles: Two Experiments from History and Political Science , 1999 .

[31]  Li‐fang Zhang,et al.  University Students' Learning Approaches in Three Cultures: An Investigation of Biggs's 3P Model , 2000, The Journal of psychology.

[32]  Robert H. Davis,et al.  Conceptualizing and Measuring the Optimal Experience of the eLearning Environment , 2007 .

[33]  Ngai-Ying Wong,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of the Psychosocial Environmental and Learning Approaches in the Hong Kong Classroom , 1998 .

[34]  Kathleen L. McFadden,et al.  Combining Operations Management and Information Systems Curricula: Assessing Alumni Preparations for the Workforce , 2005 .

[35]  Charles R. Duke Learning Outcomes: Comparing Student Perceptions of Skill Level and Importance , 2002 .

[36]  Kay Bryant,et al.  Impact of Web-Based Flexible Learning on Academic Performance in Information Systems , 2003, J. Inf. Syst. Educ..

[37]  J. Arbaugh Virtual Classroom Characteristics and Student Satisfaction with Internet-Based MBA Courses , 2000 .

[38]  D. Watkins,et al.  Affective variables, learning approaches and academic achievement: A causal modelling investigation with Hong Kong tertiary students , 1998 .

[39]  Heba El-Deghaidy,et al.  Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[40]  Mark Kretovics,et al.  Assessing the MBA: What do our students learn? , 1999 .

[41]  Ted Nunan,et al.  Rethinking the Ways in which Teaching and Learning are Supported: The Flexible Learning Centre at the University of South Australia , 2000 .

[42]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[43]  M. Allen,et al.  Comparing Student Satisfaction With Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis , 2002 .

[44]  J. Arfield,et al.  Flexible learning in higher education , 1996 .

[45]  Hatice Ferhan Odabasi,et al.  Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[46]  Mike Moore,et al.  Distance Education: A Systems View , 1995 .

[47]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Learning Together and Alone , 1999 .

[48]  Fan Yang,et al.  Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny-Judd model with Interaction effects , 1996 .

[49]  C. Gibson,et al.  Virtual teams that work : creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness , 2003 .

[50]  Mike Moore,et al.  Editorial: Towards an American council , 1991 .

[51]  Ömer Delialioglu,et al.  Students' Perceptions on Effective Dimensions of Interactive Learning in a Blended Learning Environment , 2007, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[52]  D. Dill,et al.  Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems , 2005 .

[53]  Errol Yudko,et al.  Attitudes, beliefs, and attendance in a hybrid course , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[54]  Linda S. Brew The role of student feedback in evaluating and revising a blended learning course , 2008, Internet High. Educ..

[55]  J. Biggs,et al.  Teaching For Quality Learning At University , 1999 .

[56]  Jacqueline Douglas,et al.  The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education , 2008 .

[57]  C Loehlin John,et al.  Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis , 1986 .

[58]  Martin Reisslein,et al.  Integrating emerging topics through online team design in a hybrid communication networks course: Interaction patterns and impact of prior knowledge , 2005, Internet High. Educ..

[59]  Barry C. Dart,et al.  Students' Conceptions of Learning, the Classroom Environment, and Approaches to Learning , 2000 .

[60]  K. Scouller,et al.  Student experience and tertiary expectations: factors predicting academic literacy amongst first‐year pharmacy students , 2008 .

[61]  R. Ellis,et al.  Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education , 2007, Internet High. Educ..

[62]  Dowming Yeh,et al.  What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[63]  Byron J. Finch Operations Now: Supply Chain Profitability and Performance , 2007 .

[64]  Yair Levy,et al.  A Case Study of Management Skills Comparison in Online and On-Campus MBA Programs , 2005, Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Educ..

[65]  John A. Hamilton,et al.  Systems alignment: linking tertiary institution learning modes and graduate attributes to business enhancement , 2008 .

[66]  Scott D. Johnson,et al.  Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams , 2002, Comput. Educ..

[67]  Dan,et al.  Student Hits in an Internet-Supported Course: How Can Instructors Use Them and What Do They Mean?. , 2003 .

[68]  Estelle Michinov,et al.  Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior over time , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[69]  Gabriele Piccoli,et al.  Computer Self-Efficacy and Motivation to Learn in a Self-Directed Online Course , 2009 .

[70]  Richard Caladine Teaching for Flexible Learning: Learning to Apply the Technology; MOLTA , 1999 .

[71]  Kate Beattie,et al.  Flexible coursework delivery to Australian postgraduates: How effective is the teaching and learning? , 1997 .

[72]  Mário Raposo,et al.  Conceptual Model of Student Satisfaction in Higher Education , 2007 .

[73]  Hyungsung Park Design and development of a mobile learning management system adaptive to learning style of students , 2005, IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE'05).

[74]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs , 2005 .

[75]  Qingyu Zhang E-supply Chain Technologies and Management , 2007 .

[76]  Michael Prosser,et al.  Towards an Understanding of Individual Acts of Teaching and Learning , 1997 .

[77]  Marcy Reisetter,et al.  The Impact of Altered Realties: Implications of Online Delivery for Learners’ Interactions, Expectations, and Learning Skills , 2007 .

[78]  J. Hair Multivariate data analysis : a global perspective , 2010 .

[79]  Peter J. Smith Technology student learning preferences and the design of flexible learning programs , 2001 .

[80]  Betty Collis,et al.  Flexible learning and design of instruction , 1998, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[81]  Boaz Shulruf,et al.  Student pathways at the university: patterns and predictors of completion , 2008 .

[82]  Barbara L. Rau,et al.  A Study of Disciplinary, Structural, and Behavioral Effects on Course Outcomes in Online MBA Courses , 2007 .

[83]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Beginning SAP R/3 Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals , 2000, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[84]  James Braman,et al.  Extending the Classroom through Second Life , 2009, J. Inf. Syst. Educ..

[85]  Betty Collis,et al.  Flexible Learning in a Digital World , 2002 .

[86]  Saroja Selvanathan,et al.  Learning Experience and Learning Effectiveness in Undergraduate Statistics: Modeling Performance in Traditional and Flexible Learning Environments , 2005 .

[87]  Carlin Dowling,et al.  Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students' learning outcomes? , 2003 .

[88]  Dusya Vera,et al.  Enhancing Knowledge Transfer in Classroom Versus Online Settings: The Interplay Among Instructor, Student, Content, and Context , 2009 .

[89]  Michael Prosser,et al.  Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes , 1991 .

[90]  Nada Dabbagh,et al.  Online Learning: Concepts, Strategies, and Application , 2004 .

[91]  Rolph E. Anderson,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings , 1979 .

[92]  Martyn Standage,et al.  A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. , 2003 .

[93]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  EQS : structural equations program manual , 1989 .

[94]  P. Navarro,et al.  Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace , 2000 .