1. bookVolume 21 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Learning Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions in A Flexible Learning Course

Published Online: 02 Mar 2019
Volume & Issue: Volume 21 (2018) - Issue 2 (December 2018)
Page range: 44 - 52
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

With flexible learning, students gain access and flexibility with regard to at least one of the following dimensions: time, place, pace, learning style, content, assessment or learning path. Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW) has launched a new flexible learning study format called FLEX, a blended learning design allowing students to be more flexible as to when and where they study. It reduces classroom learning time, replacing some of it with an e-learning environment for self-study that includes instructional videos. In a pilot phase, we conducted a semi-experimental study on the learning effectiveness of FLEX. Students’ perceptions of the new study format FLEX were found to be positive. In addition, the final test results of students in the FLEX programme were similar to those of other students, despite classroom learning time was reduced by about half.

Keywords

1. 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. doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9077-310.1007/s12528-013-9077-3Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

2. Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 31(Supplement C), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.00110.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

3. Chen, D.-T. (2003). Uncovering the provisos behind flexible learning. Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), 25-30.Search in Google Scholar

4. Deschacht, N., & Goeman, K. (2015). The effect of blended learning on course persistence and performance of adult learners. Comput. Educ., 87(C), 83-89. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.02010.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.020Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

5. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

6. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

7. Horton, W. (2012). E-Learning by Design. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Search in Google Scholar

8. Li, K. C. (2014). How flexible do students prefer their learning to be? Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 9(1), 35-46.10.1108/AAOUJ-09-01-2014-B004Search in Google Scholar

9. Li, K. C., & Wong, B. Y. Y. (2018). Revisiting the Definitions and Implementation of Flexible Learning. In K. C. Li, K. S. Yuen, & B. T. M. Wong (Eds.), Innovations in Open and Flexible Education (pp. 3-13). Singapore: Springer Singapore.Search in Google Scholar

10. 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. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=1688210.1177/016146811311500307Search in Google Scholar

11. Meyners, M. (2012). Equivalence tests – A review. Food Quality and Preference, 26(2), 231-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.00310.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

12. Molina, A. I., Jurado, F., de la Cruz, I., Redondo, M. Á., & Ortega, M. (2009). Tools to Support the Design, Execution and Visualization of Instructional Designs. Paper presented at the Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering, Berlin, Heidelberg.10.1007/978-3-642-04265-2_33Search in Google Scholar

13. Oftedal, B., Urstad, K., Hvidsten, V., & Foss, B. (2015). Blended VS On-Campus Learning: A study of Exam Results in the Bachelor Degree in Nursing. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 11(3). Retrieved from https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/319Search in Google Scholar

14. Rindermann, H., & Amelang, M. (1994). Entwicklung und Erprobung eines Fragebogens zur studentischen Veranstaltungsevaluation. Empirische Pädagogik, 8(2), 131-151.Search in Google Scholar

15. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450.10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450Search in Google Scholar

16. Samarawickrema, R. G. (2005). Determinants of student readiness for flexible learning: Some preliminary findings. Distance Education, 26(1), 49-66.10.1080/01587910500081277Search in Google Scholar

17. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1997). Eight Common but False Objections to Discontinuation of Significance Testing in the Analysis of Research Data. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 37-64). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

18. Stiller, K., Bachmaier, R., & Köster, A. (2013). NiceDesign4KMU. Online-Weiterbildung „Mediengestaltung”. Evaluationsbericht.Search in Google Scholar

19. Tucker, R., & Morris, G. (2012). By Design: Negotiating Flexible Learning in the Built Environment Discipline. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), n1. doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0.1440410.3402/rlt.v20i0.14404Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

20. 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(Supplement C), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.00210.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

21. Wellek, S. (2010). Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence and noninferiority (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.10.1201/EBK1439808184Search in Google Scholar

22. Wilson, K., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33-53.10.1080/03075079712331381121Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo