Abstract
Hybrid courses are increasing in popularity, especially in a post-pandemic environment; however, critics of this teaching modality question the quality of student learning in these courses. This study sought to identify what factors influence students perceived learning in hybrid courses. In order to assess students perceived learning in hybrid courses, a survey instrument was created and distributed to 420 current or recent (within five years) baccalaureate students who had taken at least one hybrid course. The results of this study found that age, likelihood to recommend hybrid course, ability to learn new skills, flexibility, increased interaction and community, and ability to graduate a timely manner were key factors associated with an increase in perceived learning in hybrid courses.
Introduction
The landscape of higher education has been continuously evolving in recent years, with educators continuing to seek new and innovative teaching methods and course designs in order to remain both relevant and effective. One such approach is the use of the hybrid modality, comprising a face-to-face campus classroom component with an entirely online component. Additionally, the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic forced higher education institutions worldwide to quickly pivot from face-to-face to online instruction (Vindača & Ļubkina, 2021), further solidifying the need for new and innovative teaching pedagogies.
It is predicted that trends in higher education post-Covid-19 will include demand for more flexible learning (Martin & Furiv, 2020), and a wider role of online learning (Dennis, 2020), leaving many to wonder whether this will cause a permanent shift to online, digital, or blended learning models for higher education institutions (Vindača & Ļubkina, 2021). In a recent survey, a majority of students indicated they would like the option to continue studying online. In fact, 73% of students somewhat or strongly agreed they would like to take some fully online courses, and 68% of students indicated they would be interested in taking courses consisting of a combination of in-person and online instruction (Mckenzie, 2021). Various surveys have indicated that higher education students expect to continue to use aspects of remote learning that were used during the pandemic. Additionally, most students want to keep the option of studying online to some extent, confirming a need for hybrid solutions in higher education (Miroshnikov, 2021).
Previously, the hybrid learning method faced multiple criticisms including questioning the motivation for such courses, as well as their ability to maintain pedagogical integrity (Gouge, 2009). Other criticisms include concerns of reduced exposure time to instructors and less likelihood of learning (Lieberman, 2018). Although hybrids have faced much scrutiny, many administrators have assured that hybrids are a sound education model (Lieberman, 2018).
It is evident that today’s higher education consumers anticipate that online and hybrid learning models will remain even as the pandemic wanes. This study seeks to address criticisms of hybrid learning and identify factors that impact student perceptions of learning in hybrid courses. The results from this study provide insights that can be used by instructors and course designers, as well as by administrators to aid in program design and overall academic strategic planning.
In order to assess perceived student learning in hybrid courses, a survey instrument was devised and distributed to 420 current or recent (within five years) baccalureate students who were either enrolled in hybrid courses or had taken at least one hybrid course. For the purpose of this study, a hybrid course was defined as a course that meets face-to-face for a portion of the class meeting dates, and the remainder of the meeting dates are replaced with online or outside activities. The survey elicited their perceived learning in hybrid courses, as well as captured a variety of other key indicators. It should be noted that perception can be influenced by many factors. Page (1990) supported the validity of self-reports of perceived learning based on the consistency of results over time and across various populations. Additionally, it is important for instructors to understand students perceived level of learning in order to modify instruction accordingly (Wighting, 2011).
A probit model was employed to determine student perceptions of learning in hybrid courses based on the degree to which hybrid courses permit analysis and critical evaluation of ideas, aid in the acquisition of new skills, help the student graduate in a timely manner, impact likelihood of recommending hybrid courses to other students, and various other perceived benefits of hybrid courses.
Background and Literature Review
Overview of Hybrids
Hybrid courses utilize both traditional face-to-face classroom meetings with self-guided online learning outside of class (Gould, 2003). The time students would normally spend in the classroom is reduced to promote active independent learning (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002). Hybrid courses were originally created to provide educational opportunities to students living in rural areas where commuting to school was problematic. Today, hybrid courses have evolved to include returning mature students, single parents, young adults, international students, and students with disabilities (Yudko, Hiokawa, & Chi, 2006; Tice, 2011). In addition, hybrid learning has been utilized as educators navigate the Covid-19 pandemic.
In recent years there has been a paradigm shift in higher education from face-to-face classroom learning to online and hybrid environments (Dias & Diniz, 2014). Today’s students have grown up with the Internet, email, social networking sites, and other online communication tools, making hybrid courses a better fit (Gould, 2003; Jackson & Helms, 2008). In fact, students indicated they preferred the hybrid method of instruction, with the online approach coming in second and lecture last (Marquis & Ghosh, 2017). Many students have indicated an expectation to continue to utilize aspects of remote learning they found useful during the Covid-19 pivot and most want to continue to study online, further solidifying the need for more hybrid offerings in higher education (Miroshnikov, 2021; McKenzie, 2021).
Benefits of Hybrid Courses
Hybrid courses provide a plethora of benefits to learners including the opportunity to learn face-to-face in the classroom, learn independently online, practice communication skills in multiple modalities, and flexibility of time due to not having to always be in a physical classroom (Cathorall, Xin, Blankson, Kempland & Schaefer, 2018). One of the most cited benefits of hybrid courses is the increased flexibility allowing students to have increased availability in their schedules while retaining the benefits of face-to-face class meetings to cover key topics (Kim & Krueger, 2017; Hung, Chou, Chen & Own, 2010). Even prior to the Covid-19 crisis, the Education 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goal 4 (ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all) noted the need for more flexibility in higher education to provide diverse learning opportunities to support equity and lifelong learning (Martin & Furiv, 2020).
Today’s learners are flexible in broadening their learning styles and able to accommodate varying instructional strategies (Saeed, Yang, and Sinappan, 2009). Hybrid courses accommodate a variety of learning styles by providing multiple modes of delivery of the instructional materials (Gould, 2009; Lin, 2009) and have been found to be effective in addressing diverse learning styles (Bielwaski & Metcalf, 2003). Learning materials and resources can be delivered using a variety of multimedia formats and technology-facilitated activities which may provide mechanisms to accommodate student learning styles more consistently (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Utilizing various instructional strategies and innovative uses of technology generate new opportunities for personalized and creative learning strategies for students (Tseng & Walsh, 2015).
From the student point of view there are many advantages of hybrids, including the ability to work at their own pace within the online portion of the course while maintaining the face-to- face contact with the instructor for questions and clarification (Mansour & David, 2007). Students also indicated that hybrid courses allowed more time to think through questions, prepare well thought out responses, and reflect on what they learned, ultimately increasing their satisfaction with online learning (Adeniji-Neill, Weida & Mungai, 2018; Jackson & Helms, 2008; Mansour & David, 2007). Students in hybrid courses also indicated a faster response time from instructors in hybrid versus face-to-face classes (Senn, 2008). Hybrid models can foster social interaction, increase access to knowledge, and increase the amount of teacher presence (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Rovai & Jordan (2004) found that students perceived a stronger sense of community in blended versus online courses.
Hybrid courses have been shown to increase graduation rates. Studies have found that having the opportunity to participate in hybrid courses was a key factor in the completion of their studies (Yudko, Hiokawa, & Chi, 2006; Tice, 2011). Blau, Drennen, Hochner & Kapanjie (2016) found that students perceived learning in hybrid courses significantly contributed to perceived timely graduation, indicating that perceived learning through online or hybrid courses may help students to persevere toward graduation. Additionally, Raju & Schumacker (2015) noted that the percentage of college students graduating within five years decreased from 54.4% in 1991 to 51.9% in 2012, which may be partially attributed to hybrid courses. It is important to note the importance of students’ self-motivation and self-management due to less in class time and more independent learning (So and Brush, 2008), and multiple studies have found a significant relationship between learning motivation and achievement in blended learning environment (Lopez-Perez, Perz-Lopez, & Rodriguez-Arizas, 2011; Mendez & Gonzalez, 2011).
Effectiveness of Hybrid Courses
A variety of studies have found there is no significant difference in student performance between hybrid, online and traditional face-to-face courses (Ward, 2004; Cathoral et al, 2018; Hale, Mirakian, & Day, 2009). It has been found that student performance in traditional and hybrid sections of the same course were comparable (Napier, Dekhane & Smith, 2011), academic performance is not significantly associated with class delivery format (Keller, Hassell, Webber & Johnson, 2009), and there is no significant difference in grades between hybrid and online students (Murray, Perez, Geist, and Hendrick, 2013). Tseng & Walsh (2015) found that students in hybrid courses achieved higher levels of learning outcomes and skills, and higher performance than students in traditional courses. Students also perceive that they learn more in hybrid courses by working with other students in groups and from online interactions (Senn, 2008). Students in hybrid courses indicated that they had positive experiences, would like to take more courses in this format, and would recommend hybrid courses to their friends (Tseng & Walsh, 2015; Adeniji-Neill, Weida & Mungai, 2018). Additionally, students perceive that the instruction and educational content derived from hybrid courses are comparable to those in a traditional learning environment (O’brien, Hartshorne, Beattie & Jordan, 2011).
Benefits of Hybrids to Universities
Hybrid courses provide many advantages to universities. With many universities facing fiscal constraints, hybrid and distance education serves as a resource for universities to deliver quality instruction while reaching more students (Euzent, Martin, Moskal & Moskal, 2011). However, moving course material online using a hybrid system can be challenging for instructors as they learn to convey information effectively (Kim & Krueger, 2017). However, the benefits of hybrid courses outweigh the costs, and universities should provide more courses using the hybrid model to better meet the needs of current students and attract new students that require more flexibility to integrate work, home demands, and schooling needs (Marquis & Gosh, 2017).
Need for the Study and Research Questions
There has been a variety of research related to the benefits and efficacy of hybrid courses. However, much of the research presented in the current literature reflects the results from a specific institution or a case study. This research presents findings related to the age of those that prefer hybrid learning, benefits of hybrid courses, intention to recommend hybrid courses, timely graduation due to taking hybrid courses, and perceived learning of hybrid courses from a random representative sample of baccalaureate students from colleges across the United States that have taken a hybrid course within the past 5 years. The results of this study can be used by educators and administrators to identify instances where hybrid learning may lead to greater perceived learning among students as they navigate new expectations in a post-pandemic environment.
This research study aims to answers the following research questions:
- Is the age of the hybrid learner associated with perceived learning?
- What benefits of hybrid learning impact perceived learning in hybrid courses?
- Is intention to recommend a hybrid course associated with an increase in perceived learning?
- Does the ability to graduate in a timely manner impact perceived learning in hybrid courses?
Methodology, Survey Development, Reliability and Validity
This study utilized a survey of 420 students that were currently or had been enrolled in a baccalaureate program within the past 5 years and had taken a hybrid course. Respondents were between the ages of 18 and 64, so as not to include any persons from vulnerable populations. The survey was distributed using Qualtrics Panels. Qualtrics Panels is a paid service that utilizes panel members to participate in surveys. Qualtrics Panels collaborates with over 20 online panel providers in order to obtain a diverse pool of respondents. The research was funded by the University of Minnesota, Crookston.
For the purpose of this study, a hybrid course was defined as a course that meets face-to-face for a portion of the class meeting dates, and the remainder of the meeting dates are replaced with online or outside activities. The survey asked a series of ordinal number ranking questions. Survey content related to benefits of hybrid courses was primarily derived from the literature reviews. The benefits of hybrid courses were measured using a 6-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= somewhat disagree, 4= somewhat agree, 5= agree, and 6= strongly agree). The questions in this scale were:
- FLEXIBILITY: Flexibility (in terms of schedule, demands on time)
- INTERACTION: Increased interaction and community
- F2F: The opportunity for face-to-face time
- INSTRUCTORS: Option to take courses from different instructors
- VARIETY: The opportunity to learn course content in a variety of ways
- OTHER: Other (please describe)
Questions related to intent to recommend hybrid courses, perceived learning and timely graduation were adopted from Blau and Drennan (2016). Blau and Drennan (2016) utilized a 7- point Likert scale; however, this study used the 6-point Likert scale noted above to eliminate a middle or neutral answer. The statements in this scale were:
- I would recommend HYBRID courses to other students.
- In general, HYBRID courses allow me to analyze/critically evaluate ideas and issues.
- In general, I acquire new skills in HYBRID courses.
- Taking HYBRID courses will help me to graduate in a timely manner.
Blau and Drennan (2016) utilized these scales to conduct two samples (n=264 and n=272) and reported Cronbach Alpha scores for both samples. The Cronbach Alpha for the following three measures were as follows: 1) Intent to recommend was .76 and .8, respectively; 2) Perceived learning was .76 and .87, respectively; and 3) Timely graduation was .76 and .80, respectively.
Questions related to perceived learning were developed based on the perceived cognitive learning scale that was first developed by Richmond, McCroskey, Kearny & Plax (1987). This scale asks students to measure how much they learned in the class on a scale of 0 to 9 with 0=learned nothing. This scale was modified to be a scale from 1 to 9, with 1= learn nothing. This modification was made so data could be more easily interpreted. Since this is a single-item scale, no internal consistency of reliability measures are needed. However, McCroskey, Sallinen, Richmond and Barraclough (1996) reported test-retest reliability over a five-day period of .85 (n=162).
In addition, there was an ordinal number question constituting a discrete variable as follows:
- What is your age?
Although these factors cannot cover the entirety of potential behavioral and psychological influences, the specific questions were chosen to elicit preferences based on perception of key elements of intended benefits of hybrids, typical avenues of assessment, and areas of controversy regarding hybrids. A probit model was chosen because the dependent variable is both discrete and ordinal. Additionally, given the reasonable expectation that perception of student learning is, like any perception, influenced by many psychological factors, it was also considered to be particularly insightful to investigate the effects of the independent variables on the probability of a student choosing a high-ranking of perceived student learning in hybrid courses (Johnson, 2017). The respondent’s perceived learning was used as the dependent variable in the probit model. The other variables comprised the set of independent/explanatory variables. The model is given in Eqn. 1 below.
(1) P(HYBRID_LEARNING>1 ┤|X)= Φ(X^T β)
In Eqn. 1 above, X is the matrix of explanatory variables, and F is the cumulative distribution function, and b is the matrix of coefficients. The complete list of variables is provided below.
- HYBRID_LEARNING: Perceived learning by the student in a hybrid course ranked from 1 to 9, with 1 being the least amount of learning and 9 being the most.
- AGE: Age of the respondent
- FLEXIBILITY: Flexibility (in terms of schedule, demands on time)
- INTERACTION: Increased interaction and community
- F2F: The opportunity for face-to-face time
- INSTRUCTORS: Option to take course from different instructors
- VARIETY: The opportunity to learn course content in a variety of ways
- OTHER: Other (please describe)
- WOULD_RECOMMEND: The degree to which the respondent would recommend hybrid courses to other students
- ANALYZE_IDEAS: The degree to which the respondent perceived hybrids provided the ability to analyze ideas in the class
- NEW_SKILLS: The degree to which the respondents perceived hybrids provided the ability to gain new skills
- TIMELY_GRADUATION: The degree to which the respondent perceived hybrids helped in the goal of timely graduation
Interpretation of Results
Tables 1 and 2 below provide the summary statistics of perception of hybrid learning and the explanatory variables respectively.
| Ranked Response | Frequencies | % |
| 1 | 1 | 0.241 |
| 2 | 1 | 0.241 |
| 3 | 3 | 0.723 |
| 4 | 13 | 3.133 |
| 5 | 28 | 6.747 |
| 6 | 54 | 13.012 |
| 7 | 124 | 29.880 |
| 8 | 102 | 24.578 |
| 9 | 89 | 21.446 |
Table 1: Summary Statistics of Student Responses to Perception of Learning in Hybrid Courses
(Variable HYBRID_LEARNING)
| Variable | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. deviation |
| AGE | 2.000 | 7.000 | 3.887 | 1.381 |
| BENEFIT 1: FLEXIBILITY | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.805 | 0.397 |
| BENEFIT 2: INTERACTION | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.260 | 0.439 |
| BENEFIT 3: F2F | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.337 | 0.473 |
| BENEFIT 4: INSTRUCTORS | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.511 | 0.500 |
| BENEFIT 5: VARIETY | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.007 | 0.085 |
| BENEFIT 6: OTHER | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.275 | 0.447 |
| WOULD_RECOMMEND | 1.000 | 7.000 | 5.627 | 1.527 |
| ANALYZE_IDEAS | 1.000 | 7.000 | 5.576 | 1.361 |
| NEW_SKILLS | 1.000 | 7.000 | 5.586 | 1.394 |
| TIMELY_GRADUATION | 1.000 | 7.000 | 5.759 | 1.357 |
Table 2: Summary Statistics of Explanatory Variables
The regression coefficient estimates are provided in Table 3 below.
| Source | Value | Standard error | Wald Chi-Square | Pr > Chi² |
| Intercept1 | -0.015 | 0.499 | 0.001 | 0.976 |
| Intercept2 | 0.358 | 0.393 | 0.831 | 0.362 |
| Intercept3 | 0.787 | 0.334 | 5.559 | 0.018 |
| Intercept4 | 1.433 | 0.304 | 22.252 | < 0.0001 |
| Intercept5 | 2.067 | 0.301 | 47.019 | < 0.0001 |
| Intercept6 | 2.747 | 0.309 | 79.028 | < 0.0001 |
| Intercept7 | 3.737 | 0.323 | 134.203 | < 0.0001 |
| Intercept8 | 4.568 | 0.336 | 184.993 | < 0.0001 |
| AGE | -0.158 | 0.039 | 16.661 | < 0.0001 |
| BENEFIT 1: FLEXIBILITY | -0.280 | 0.148 | 3.598 | 0.058 |
| BENEFIT 2: INTERACTION | -0.275 | 0.134 | 4.208 | 0.040 |
| BENEFIT 3: F2F | -0.041 | 0.113 | 0.130 | 0.719 |
| BENEFIT 4: INSTRUCTORS | -0.107 | 0.109 | 0.964 | 0.326 |
| BENEFIT 5: VARIETY | 0.968 | 0.607 | 2.545 | 0.111 |
| BENEFIT 6: OTHER | -0.270 | 0.120 | 5.037 | 0.025 |
| WOULD_RECOMMEND | -0.133 | 0.055 | 5.955 | 0.015 |
| ANALYZE_IDEAS | -0.047 | 0.061 | 0.576 | 0.448 |
| NEW_SKILLS | -0.168 | 0.057 | 8.768 | 0.003 |
| TIMELY_GRADUATION | -0.105 | 0.058 | 3.206 | 0.073 |
Table 3: Regression Results
(Coefficients statistically significant at least at the 95% level included in the bold.)
The Cox-Snell R2 value was 64%, and the Nagelkerke R2 value was 65%. However, significant care must be taken in the interpretation of any R2 value in this case, for it does not mean the same thing that it does in an OLS regression. The Cox-Snell and Nagelkerke values are both pseudo-R2. Cox-Snell has a maximum value (indicating the perfect model/fit) of less than one, while Nagelkerke is adjusted so that it has a maximum value of one.
In the interpretation of an ordered probit model, coefficients provide the effect of a given explanatory variable on the ratio of probabilities relating to the dependent variable as given in equation 2 below:
P(Y≤1)
———
((Y>1) )
In this particular ordered probit regression, then, the ratio in Eqn. 2 becomes that as given in Eqn. 3.
P(HYBRID_LEARNING≤1)
———————————–
P(HYBRID_LEARNING>1)
All coefficients on significant explanatory variables are negative. That indicates that either the numerator is decreasing, or the denominator is increasing. Therefore, an increase in the specific explanatory variable results in a proportional decrease in the probability of low levels of hybrid learning and an increase in likelihood of higher levels of hybrid learning. In other words, an increase in the explanatory variable results in an increase of higher perceived levels of learning in hybrid courses.
In reference to the explanatory variables, some interesting trends emerge. First, older students are more likely to perceive higher levels of learning through hybrid courses. Similarly, flexibility, increased interaction and community, and “other” were significant and likewise indicate that students in those categories are more likely to perceive higher levels of learning in hybrid courses. Unsurprisingly, the more likely a given student is to recommend hybrid courses, the more likely they are to perceive a high level of learning in such courses. Presumably that correlation implies the converse is true, i.e., the more a given student perceives higher levels of learning in a hybrid course, the more likely they are to recommend the format to someone else.
The variable NEW_SKILLS is also significant with a negative coefficient, implying that students that indicated they learn new skills in hybrids perceive the degree of learning to be greater in hybrid courses. Perhaps of great importance in today’s university landscape, TIMELY_GRADUATION was also significant (at the 90% confidence level) and negative. That is, there is a correlation between the likelihood of receiving higher degrees of learning and those who feel that hybrids help them to graduate in a timely fashion.
Discussion
The results of this study indicate that older students are more likely to realize higher levels of perceived learning in hybrid courses. Students learning in a hybrid setting must have self-motivation and self-management because there is less class time and more emphasis on self-paced learning (So & Brush, 2008). They must also be committed to “attending” both physical and online class periods, which requires them to develop skills above those that would be required for a fully online or face-to-face course. Therefore, older students may have higher levels of perceived learning because they have more self-motivation, self-management, and a greater ability to manage various course modalities.
Administrators should note that older students are more likely to perceive higher levels of learning in hybrid courses. Thus, as universities return to more in-person learning, offering hybrid courses may be better suited to students in upper division courses as they are more likely to have higher levels of motivation, time management and greater ability to manage multiple learning modalities.
This study also found that increased interaction and community in hybrid courses leads to an increase in perceived learning of students. Sadera, Roberts, Song and Midon (2009) found that that a positive relationship exists between students’ sense of community and success in online courses. Baker et al. (2020) found that learning activities among teachers and students has the potential to generate positive communication and interactions amongst each other. This is especially true in hybrid instruction because it combines the benefits of flexibility and availability of course materials in an online setting, yet still gives students the opportunity to have face-to-face interactions with their peers and instructors. Providing an online component also provides students with the opportunity to express their thoughts, concerns, and questions online, which is different from the traditional classroom setting where students may have limited time or opportunities to raise questions and participate (Kim et al., 2005).
This study also found the ability to learn new skills in courses is associated with an increase in perceived learning. Tseng & Walsh (2015) found that students in hybrid courses achieved higher levels of learning outcomes and skills. Additionally, hybrid courses allow learning materials and resources to be delivered using a variety of formats, providing multiple mechanisms to accommodate student learning (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Similarly, utilizing various instructional strategies generates new opportunities for personalized and creative learning strategies for students (Tseng & Walsh, 2015), all of which can lead to an increase in perceived learning. Thus, not only do students hope to continue to study online in some form post Covid-19, but providing opportunities to learn in both a face-to-face and online modality allows students to learn new skills and increases perceived learning among students.
This study also found that the flexibility of hybrid courses is associated with higher levels of perceived learning in hybrid courses. One of the most cited benefits of hybrid courses is the increased flexibility (Kim & Krueger, 2017; Hung, Chou Chen & Own, 2010); therefore, it makes sense that increased flexibility would lead to higher levels of perceived learning. This is especially true in terms of hybrid classes because students are able to maintain availability in their schedules while retaining the benefits of face-to-face class meetings to cover key topics (Kim & Krueger, 2017; Hung, Chou, Chen & Own, 2010).
Martin and Furviv (2020) noted that trends in higher education post Covid-19 will include demand for more flexible learning. This finding is also supported by Miroshnikov (2021), whose findings indicated that first year students are more apt to return to on-campus learning after the pandemic, as this is the beginning of a new independent adult life where their academic, personal, and social lives intersect. However, as students progress towards their final year of higher education, they find flexible hybrid models to be more helpful, especially if they have started an internship or job, allowing them to combine study and work more efficiently. Utilizing hybrid learning models in order to provide flexibility for students can also help to increase perceived learning and can provide even greater benefits to students in their final year of study.
Similarly, studies have found that having the opportunity to participate in hybrid courses was a key factor in the completion of their studies (Yudko, Hiokawa, & Chi, 2006; Tice, 2011). This study added to this body of knowledge in finding that ability for timely graduation is associated with an increase in perceived learning in hybrid courses (at the 90% confidence level). Similarly, Blau, Drennen, Hochner & Kapanjie (2016) found that perceived learning in hybrid courses significantly contributed to perceived timely graduation, indicating that perceived learning through online or hybrid courses may help students to persevere toward graduation. Conversely, the ability to graduate in a timely manner may help students to have an increased motivation to learn and thus lead to an increase in perceived learning in hybrid courses.
Limitations and Future Research
This research study only evaluated factors that lead to higher levels of perceived learning in hybrid courses. Future studies should evaluate and compare these factors in relation to perceived learning in fully face-to-face and fully online courses. Additionally, future studies could seek to identify which online assessments and activities aid in higher levels of perceived learning.
Conclusion
This study sought to identify factors that lead to increased levels of perceived learning in hybrid courses. This information is relevant in today’s higher education environment, as more students are demanding more flexible learning environments and the use of online tools that were utilized during the Covid-19 pivot. The results of this study found that age, flexibility of hybrid courses, sense of community, likelihood to recommend hybrid courses, the ability to learn new skills, and timely graduation are indicators of higher perceived levels of learning in hybrid courses. The results of this study contribute to the body of literature related to perceived levels of learning in hybrid courses, and further solidify hybrid learning as a valid and valuable pedagogical tool for today’s learners.
References
- Adeniji-Neill, D., Weida, C. L., & Mungai, A. (2018). Hybrid, hybrid flexible and fully online learning through students’ eyes. Journal of Social Sciences, 14, 155-168.
- Baker, D. M. A., Unni, R., Kerr-Sims, S., & Marquis, G. (2020). Understanding Factors That Influence Attitude and Preference for Hybrid Course Formats. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 14(1), 174-188.
- Blau, G., Drennan Jr, R. B., Hochner, A., & Kapanjie, D. (2016). Perceived learning and timely graduation for business undergraduates taking an online or hybrid course. Journal of Education for Business, 91(6), 347-353.
- Cathorall, M. L., Xin, H., Blankson, F., Kempland, M., & Schaefer, C. (2018). Assessing Student Performance in Hybrid versus Web-Facilitated Personal Health Courses. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 17(1), 11-16.
- Dennis, M. (2020). How will higher education have changed after COVID-19? University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200324065639773.
- Dias, S. B., & Diniz, J. A. (2014). Towards an enhanced learning management system for blended learning in higher education incorporating distinct learners’ profiles. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17, 307–319.
- Euzent, P., Martin, T., Moskal, P., & Moskal, P. (2011). Assessing student performance and perceptions in lecture capture vs. face-to-face course delivery. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10: 295- 307.
- Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid course. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6), 1–5. Retrieved from https://hccelearning.files.wordpress.com/ 2010/09/introduction-to-hybrid-course1.pdf
- Gouge, C. (2009). Conversation at a Crucial Moment: Hybrid Courses and the Future of Writing Programs. College English, 71(4).
- Gould, T. (2003). Hybrid classes: Maximizing institutional resources and student learning. Proceedings of the 2003 ASCUE Conference, 54–59. Retrieved from http://www.ectolearning.com/ File.aspx?fD02075d2e-c455-4dfb-96c4-7ce195147627
- Hale, L. S., Mirakian, E. A., & Day, D. B. (2009). Online vs. Classroom Instruction: Student Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in an Undergraduate Allied Health Pharmacology Course. Journal of Allied Health, 38(2): e-36-e42.
- Hung, M.L., C. Chou, C.H. Chen and Z.Y. Own, 2010. Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Comput. Educ., 55: 1080-1090.
- Jackson, M. J., & Helms, M. M. (2008). Student perceptions of hybrid courses: Measuring and interpreting quality. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 7-12.
- Johnson, R. (2017). Choice Waves and Strategic Interaction. Journal of Technology Research, 7.
- Keller, J. H., Hassell, J. M., Webber, S. A., & Johnson, J. N. (2009). A comparison of academic performance in traditional and hybrid sections of introductory managerial accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 27, 147–154.
- Kim, D., Krueger, T.M. (2017). Conmparison of Student Success in Hybrid and Traditional Introductory Finance Classes. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 17(5).
- Kim, K.J., S. Liu and C.J. Bonk, (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges and suggestions. Internet Higher Education., 8: 335-344.
- Lieberman, M. (2018). Furor Over Blended and Active Learning. InsideHigherEd.
- Lin, Q. (2009). Student views of hybrid learning: A one year exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25, 57–66.
- López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 818-826.
- Marquis, G. P., & Ghosh, S. (2017). Student preferences for a hybrid course. Journal of Education for Business, 92(3), 105-113.
- Martin, M & Furiv, U. (2020). COVID-19 shows the need to make learning more flexible. University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200324115802272
- McCroskey, J. C., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). A multi‐cultural examination of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 44(3), 297-307.
- McKenzie, L. (2021). Survey reveals positive outlook on online instruction post-pandemic. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com
- Mendez, J. A., & Gonzalez, E. J. (2011). Implementing motivational features in reactive blended learning: Application to an introductory control engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(4), 619-627.
- Miroshnikov, G. (2021). Education’s hybrid future: What we know from research. Campus Technology. Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2021/07/21/educations-hybrid-future-what-we-know-from-research.aspx
- Murray, M. C., Perez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2013). Student interaction with content in online and hybrid courses: Leading horses to the proverbial water. Informing Science Journal, 16, 99–115.
- Napier, N. P. S., Dekhane, S., & Smith, S. (2011). Transitioning to blended learning: Understanding student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15, 20–32.
- O’brien, C., Hartshorne, R., Beattie, J., & Jordan, L. (2011). A comparison of large lecture, fully online, and hybrid sections of introduction to special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(4), 19-31.
- Raju, D., & Schumacker, R. (2015) Exploring student characteristics of retention that lead to graduation in higher education using data mining models. Journal of College Student Retention, 16, 563-591.
- Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1987). Power in the classroom VII: Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36(1), 1-12.
- Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www. irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274
- Sadera, W. A., Robertson, J., Song, L., & Midon, M. N. (2009). The role of community in online learning success. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 277-284.
- Saeed, N., Yang, Y., & Sinnappan, S. (2009). Emerging Web technologies in higher education: A case of incorporating blogs, podcasts and social bookmarks in a Web programming course based on students’ learning styles and technology preferences. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 98-109.
- Senn, G., (2008). Comparison of Face-to-Face an Hybrid Delivery of a Course that Requires Technology Skills Development. University of South Carolina AAiken, Aiken, SC, USA. Vol. 7.
- So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51, 318-336.
- Tice, C. (2011) Responding to Change Online Education at the College of Central Florida. Distant Learning, 8(3).
- Tseng, H., & Walsh Jr, E. J. (2015). Blended vs. Traditional Course Delivery: Comparing Students’ Motivation, Learning Outcomes, and Preferences.
- Ward, B. (2004). The best of both worlds: A hybrid statistics course. Journal of Statistics Education, 12(3), 74–79.
- Wighting, M. (2011). Measuring sense of community and perceived learning among alternative licensure candidates. Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification, 6(1), 4-12.
- Yudko, E., Hirokawa, R., & Chi, R. (2008). Attitudes, beliefs, and attendance in a hybrid course. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1217-1227.