Students Educational Results in Blended and Online E-Courses

The article presents a comparative analysis of the academic achievements of students who completed e-courses on mathematical methods in psychology by means of blended learning (N = 404) and online learning (N = 405). The research was carried out at the Moscow State University of Psychology and Education. Students in online learning achieved, on average, higher results compared with the blended learning group in the pre-test, post-test, and final course grades, however, the difference in the means for all 3 indicators is minimal, and the significance of the differences is provided by the large sample size. In a smaller sample, no significant differences in post-test and final course grades were found between the two groups. The academic achievements of graduate and undergraduate students are also practically equal: the differences in the post-test and final grade are on the verge of statistical significance, and the difference in the means is minimal and is only about 1 percentage point, which is consistent with our previous study. The dynamics of changes in the average values for academic achievement indicators in the groups of blended and online learning showed a very pronounced – about 50 percentage points – growth in the posttest indicators compared to the pretest, and then a less pronounced decline in results after1–1.5 months, measured according to the external test, which remain significantly higher than the pre-test. The decline in the online learning group is very minor, i.e., the dynamics is better. The latter result requires further verification under more equalized external testing conditions. The effect of learning in e-courses in both blended and online formats has been statistically proven. The “e-course plus” formula is proposed as a formula for a modern approach in higher education.

1. Leibina A.V., Shukuryan G.A. Sposoby povysheniya effektivnosti onlain-obrazovaniya [Ways to enhance the effectiveness of online education]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya [Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology], 2020, no. 9(3), pp. 21–33. doi:10.17759/jmfp.2020090302 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
2. Margolis A.A. Chto smeshivaet smeshannoe obuchenie? [What Kind of Blending Makes Blended Learning?]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2018, no. 23(3), pp. 5–19. doi:10.17759/pse.2018230301 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
3. Sorokova M.G. Predmetnye rezul’taty studentov v tsifrovoi srede universiteta na raznykh urovnyakh vysshego obrazovaniya: tak kto zhe bolee uspeshen? [Outcomes of Students in University Digital Environment at Different Levels of Higher Education: Who Is More Successful?]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2021, no. 26(1), pp. 76–91. doi:10.17759/pse.2021260105 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
4. Sorokova M.G. Tsifrovaya obrazovatel’naya sreda universiteta: komu bolee komfortno v nei uchit’sya? [Digital Educational Environment in University: Who is More Comfortable Studying in it?]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2020, no. 25(2), pp. 44–58. doi:10.17759/pse.2020250204 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
5. Sorokova M.G. Elektronnyi kurs kak tsifrovoi obrazovatel’nyi resurs smeshannogo obucheniya v usloviyakh vysshego obrazovaniya [E-Course as Blended Learning Digital Educational Resource in University]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2020, no. 25(1), pp. 36–50. doi:10.17759/pse.2020250104 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
6. Bernard R.M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid R.F., et al. A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 2014, no. 26, pp. 87–122. doi:10.1007/s12528–013–9077–3
7. Calderon O., Sood C. Evaluating learning outcomes of an asynchronous online discussion assignment: a post-priori content analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 2020, no. 28(1), pp. 3–17. doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1510421
8. Cavanaugh J., Jacquemin S.J. A Large Sample Comparison of Grade Based Student Learning Outcomes in Online vs. Face-to-Face courses. Online Learning, 2015, no. 19(2). doi:10.24059/olj.v19i2.454
9. Gulsecen S., Zerrin A.R., Çiğdem E., et al. Comparison of on-line and F2F education methods in teaching computer programming. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2013, no. 5, pp. 291–300.
10. Hsiao C.C., Huang J.C.H., Huang A.Y.Q., et al. Exploring the effects of online learning behaviors on short-term and long-term learning outcomes in flipped classrooms. Interactive Learning Environments, 2019, no. 27(8), pp. 1160–1177. doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1522651
11. Huang B., Hew K.F., Lo C.K. Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped learning on undergraduate students’ behavioral and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 2019, no. 27(8), pp. 1106–1126. doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1495653.
12. Hurlbut A.R. Online vs. traditional learning in teacher education: a comparison of student progress. American Journal of Distance Education, 2018, no. 32(4), pp. 248–266. doi:10.1080/08923647.2018.1509265
13. Lang C.S., Holzmann G., Hullinger H., et al. Online or Face-to-Face: Do mission-related student learning outcomes differ? Christian Higher Education, 2019, no. 18(3), pp. 177–187. doi:10.1080/15363759.2018.1460882
14. Lapitan L.Jr., Tiangco C., Sumalinog D., et al. An effective blended online teaching and learning strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education for Chemical Engineers, 2021, no. 35, pp. 116–131. doi:10.1016/j.ece.2021.01.012
15. Means B., Toyama Y., Murphy R., Baki M. The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 2013, no. 115(3), pp. 1–47.
16. Noetel M., Griffith S., Delaney O., et al. Video improves learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 2021, no. 91(2), pp. 204–236. doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990713
17. Paul J., Jefferson F. A Comparative analysis of student performance in an online vs. Face-to-Face environmental science course from 2009 to 2016. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2019, no. 1(7). doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007
18. Pei L., Wu H. Does online learning work better than offline learning in undergraduate medical education? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education Online, 2019, no. 24(1): 1666538. doi:10.1080/10872981.2019.1666538
19. Shea P., Bidjerano T. Understanding distinctions in learning in hybrid, and online environments: an empirical investigation of the community of inquiry framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 2013, no. 21(4), pp. 355–370. doi:10.1080/10494820.2011.584320
20. Sorokova M. Educational outcomes of graduate and undergraduate students who completed e-courses in mathematical methods in psychological and educational researches. Mendeley Data, 2020, V1. doi: 10.17632/hvfkdpfwnr.1
21. Sorokova M.G. Skepticism and learning difficulties in a digital environment at the Bachelor’s and Master’s levels: are preconceptions valid? Heliyon, 2020, no. 6(11). e05335. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05335
22. Vallée A., Blacher J., Cariou A., Sorbets E. Blended Learning Compared to Traditional Learning in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2020, no. 22(8). e16504. doi: 10.2196/16504
23. Wang C.H., Shannon D.M., Ross M.E. Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 2013, no. 34 (3), pp. 302–323. doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.835779
24. Zhang J.-H., Zou L., Miao J., et al. An individualized intervention approach to improving university students’ learning performance and interactive behaviors in a blended learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 2020, no. 28(2), pp. 231–245. doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1636078