Students Educational Results in Blended and Online E-Courses 287
Doctor of Education, PhD in Physics and Mathematics, Head of Scientific and Practical Center for Comprehensive Support of Psychological Research «PsyDATA», Professor, Chair of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Information Technology, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Moscow, Russia
PhD in Psychology, Head of the Department of Psychology and Pedagogy of Distance Learning, Faculty of Distance Learning, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Moscow, Russia
PhD in Psychology, Scientific researcher; Center for Comprehensive Support of Psychological Research , Moscow State University of Psychology & Education (MSUPE), Moscow, Russia
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.
Keywords: digital educational environment of the university, e-learning course,blended learning, flipped classroom, online learning
Column: Teaching Methodology
Funding. The reported study was funded by the Moscow State University of Psychology and Education (MSUPE) in the framework of the research project “Digital Technologies in Higher Education: Development of Technology for Individualizing Education Using E-Courses”.
- 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
- 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.)
- 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.)
- 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.)
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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:
- 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.
- 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