Approximating Employment Modality Preference Via Course Preference

Julianna Browning Posted on
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Abstract

The aim of this study was to learn the employment environment preferences of new employees entering the workforce. As new employees were recent college students, many had limited work experience. Their educational modality preferences may be a suitable proxy for the work environment preferences of young professionals entering the workforce. This study surveyed undergraduate university students to examine their educational modality preferences between three different course modalities which was used as a proxy for new employee work environment preferences.

The study found that students prefer a blended learning modality. The study also analyzed open-ended responses and found several major themes to support their preferences. Major themes of students preferring a blended modality included: 1) easier to concentrate (virtually), 2) more flexibility and balance, 3) commute time and cost savings, 4) like the variety, 5) building and maintaining relationships, and 6) physical and mental health. Based on this information, the author provided implications for employers to consider when recruiting and attempting to retain new employees.

Background

Pandemic restrictions provided a need for technological shifts in higher education so students could make academic progress. Similarly, many employers modified the ways in which their employees accessed the work environment to ensure the ongoing operation of businesses and the economy as a whole.

Post-pandemic, the option for higher education to continue offering hybrid, virtual, and distance modalities remained an important consideration as some students had reservations about completely in-person learning. 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 studying at least partially using online modalities (McKenzie, 2021; Miroshnikov, 2021). Similarly, some employees who were able to engage in hybrid or remote work schedules were also reluctant to return to completely in-person work environments. Many employees want to continue to work from home for some or all of their workweek (Wood, 2022) further solidifying the need for more blended modalities in higher education and the workforce.

As students graduate with their degrees and interview for jobs, it is important for them to know what their preferences are and to be able to communicate those preferences to prospective employers. While it is important, new graduates may not know what they like or what they want because they have not experienced all possibilities before. In addition, new graduates may have limited or no experience in the workforce and do not know what their preferences are.

If one would ask graduating students what their workplace modality preference is, many might say “virtual” or “hybrid” simply because they want autonomy and flexibility. But would they actually like that work environment if it was their job modality? Maybe, maybe not. They would not actually know until they had work experience in the modality.

Surveying students about their preferences before they experience the underlying condition or scenario would provide a biased and essentially inaccurate result. Surveying students after they have had experience in the workforce would be complicated as well. They would need specific experience in each type of modality. That would take years. 

If one were to base work modality preference on actual work experience, the data and findings would take a long time to gather. In addition, a longitudinal study of this nature would be difficult to manage and administer since it is difficult to keep track of and maintain relationships with students after they graduate and get them to take the surveys. 

Because of these difficulties, it makes sense that there is a gap in the literature on this topic. To investigate this information gap, the author approximated the unknown or unknowable work preference with the known or attainable learning preference. As such, student learning modality preferences can be used as a proxy to gauge the workplace preferences of new employees entering the workforce.

Literature

As there is a gap in the literature on workplace preferences of new employees entering the workforce, there is no specific literature to discuss on that topic. Instead, this discussion will examine the modality preferences of employees in the work environment and students in the learning environment. Each will be discussed in turn and reveal some commonalities.

Work Modality Preferences of Employees

The literature indicates that employees prefer a blended (or hybrid) work modality where they work from home and work from the office during their workweek. One reason employees preferred a blended work modality was to have more balance between their work and their personal lives. Employees can complete their work tasks while being present for other highly valued aspects of their lives such as their families, volunteer roles, community commitments, and passion projects (Shakti, Ray, & Gupta, 2021; Smite, Moe, Hildrum, Huerta, & Mendez, 2023; Stefaniec, Brazil, Whitney, & Caulfield, 2022).

Another reason employees prefer a blended work environment is productivity. Most employees believe they are more productive at home or at a location outside the office (Nayak & Pandit, 2021). The reasons vary but one reason in particular is that there are fewer distractions outside the office (Smite et al., 2023). In particular, employees can avoid unwanted casual conversations and similar interruptions from chatty colleagues when they are trying to work (Krajčík, Schmidt, & Baráth, 2023). In this way, employees can “close the door” and be out of reach. In other words, employees feel they can be more productive because they can focus, concentrate, and have uninterrupted work time when they are not in the office.

Additionally, employees experience significant time and monetary costs as well as stress with commuting to work. This is especially true for driving. A blended work modality reduces commute costs and stress since employees do not have to travel to their office location on a daily basis. Without those daily burdens, employees feel more relaxed while working, are more mentally prepared to work, have less stress and better mental health, and feel more productive as a result (Krajčík, Schmidt, & Baráth, 2023; Smite et al., 2023; Stefaniec et al., 2021).

Employees appreciate the flexibility of a blended work modality. They view being able to work flexible hours based on their personal schedule as a benefit. Employees also value the flexibility of being able to work from anywhere in their town, city, or around the world. This flexibility is related to work-life balance because a blended work modality allows employees to schedule their work time and physical location to be present for their families (Krajčík, Schmidt, & Baráth, 2023; McCarthy, O’Connor, Síocháin, & Frost, 2021; Smite et al., 2023; Stefaniec et al., 2021).

Employees feel better about themselves and their jobs in a blended work modality. In addition to work-life balance and flexibility, employees experience higher job satisfaction. They are more motivated to work and have less desire to quit or find new jobs. Blended work makes employees feel appreciated as individuals since their employers trust and empower them to do their work more autonomously (Shakti, Ray, & Gupta, 2021; Smite et al., 2023).

Aging is a factor for blended work modalities as well. Younger workers are more likely to want to work from home (Liang et al., 2023). In fact, 83.7% of 18- to 30-year-olds want to work at home daily or several days a week (McCarthy et al., 2021). The interest in working from home decreases with an employee’s age (Nayak & Pandit, 2021). This is not unexpected as younger employees are more technically savvy and are more accustomed to a virtual modality, especially since COVID.

The literature also indicated challenges associated with a virtual-only work modality (Yadavalli, 2020). One of these challenges was difficulties in collaborating virtually. Some employees preferred face-to-face interactions with coworkers for brainstorming or problem-solving. A second challenge is in the employee experience and relationships. In a virtual modality, there is no physical proximity to colleagues. Employees must be mindful and intentional to engage in social interaction and have connection with others in the organization, which may be difficult. A third challenge relates to corporate culture. Employees have a harder time absorbing and buying into corporate culture when they are not actively engaged in the culture daily with others. (Yadavalli, 2020). 

The literature also shows that most employees do want some in-office time to make personal connections and socialize with colleagues, engage in work groups and collaboration, and other tasks that are difficult to do virtually (Smite et al, 2023). Employers are redefining business processes and finding new ways to engage employees to meet these challenges in a blended work modality (Yadavalli, 2020). Despite the challenges, employees like a blended work modality. It is the best of both worlds: autonomy and flexibility as well as social interactions.

Course Modality Preferences of Students

For the purposes of this study, learning modalities have been defined as follows. Face-to-face (F2F) instruction means that a faculty member and students are in the same physical location for lectures and class discussions. Virtual Synchronous (Virtual Synch) instruction means the faculty member is streaming live online to students for the lecture and class discussions (California Baptist University, 2021). Classes occur during the regularly scheduled class times for that day’s instruction. Blended learning is a modality which “combines face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction” (Graham, 2006, p. 5). For this study, blended learning includes the use of both F2F and virtual synch instruction during different class sessions.

The literature indicates that university students prefer a blended learning modality. There were numerous benefits of and reasons for this preference. Several of these factors are similar to those previously explored with employee preferences. One reason students preferred blended learning was for interaction and a sense of community. Students like being able, together with faculty, to ask questions and interact informally in a classroom. Students also liked being around other students to learn, get to know each other, and make friends (Cheng, Mo, & Duan, 2023; Dangaiso, Makudza, Jaravaza, Kusvabadika, Makiwa, & Gwatinyanya, 2023; Kang & Park, 2023; Le & Tran, 2023).

Another reason students preferred blended learning was they found it useful beyond the course. They had the opportunity to learn new technologies which were helpful not only in the moment to learn the course material but also to apply them outside the classroom in their careers. Students also noted that blended learning felt new, innovative, interesting, and more engaging (Kang & Park, 2023; Kim, 2023; Le & Tran, 2023).

Many traditional students commute to campus. Similar to employees, another reason students preferred blended learning was because it reduced their commute days to campus. A blended learning modality reduces commute costs and stress since students do not have to travel to campus for every class session. Without the burdens of commuting, students feel more relaxed in the virtual classroom, are more mentally prepared to learn, have less stress and better mental health, and feel more productive as a result (Alolaywi, 2021; Kim, 2023).

Students appreciate the flexibility of a blended learning modality. Even though students still meet online for class at the scheduled day and time, geographic flexibility is especially important to students for various reasons. One reason is that many student-athletes travel for matches, tournaments, and games. A second reason is that residential students may choose to travel home for a long weekend. In both cases, students can still attend classes from another town or another state and keep up on the course material. In this way, blended learning can help reduce their stress because they do not have to worry about catching up on missed material due to their travel schedules (Alolaywi, 2021; Kim, 2023; Le & Tran, 2023).

Overall, students were very satisfied with blended learning. When it was done well, students felt they learned just as much as they would have in an F2F modality. They also felt it was a good overall experience especially when other factors were considered such as interaction and sense of community, commute, and flexibility (Cheng, Mo, & Duan, 2023; Dangaiso et al., 2023; Kim, 2023).

The literature also indicated challenges associated with the virtual synch portion of the blended learning modality. One significant challenge related to technical issues. This included a range of issues such as computer problems, power outages, internet connection or bandwidth issues, or glitches with the learning platform. A second challenge was student concentration issues or distractions. In this modality, many students were not able to manage their thoughts to focus on the material. They were easily distracted from the task of learning. A third challenge was low motivation to learn and study online. There is something motivating by the simple routine of getting up, dressed, and out of the house. When students do not have a place to be, it was more difficult for some of them to get their day started. A fourth challenge relates to the risk of cheating. If faculty do not take appropriate precautions, students can very quickly and easily cheat in the virtual synch modality, especially with the internet and AI (Alolaywi, 2021; Cheng, Mo, & Duan, 2023; Kamal, Khan, Hamad, Illiyan, Das, & Alkhuraydili, 2023).

The literature does not appear to provide insight into employment modality preferences for new graduates in the workforce. As such, there seems to be an opportunity to study the preferences of new graduates as they enter the workforce and contribute to the body of knowledge.

Purpose of the Study

As employers attempt to attract top talent from recent college graduates and then retain those newly recruited employees in a post-pandemic world, it is important for them to know what their prospective employees want in their jobs. If employers knew more about new employees’ preferences, they could work toward meeting them. One job trait that is becoming more controllable for white-collar and information workers is the work environment (Khor & Tan, 2023). Depending on the industry and level of supervision needed, employers could consider new employee preferences for working in an office, working from home, or a blended approach as a recruitment and retention tool.

While there is significant overlap between the preferences of employees in their work environments and students in their learning environments, the literature does not specifically address the work environment preferences of graduating students as they enter the workforce. As such, employers are simply doing their best to attract and retain new employees. If employers knew more about new employees’ work environment preferences, they could work toward meeting them. This appears to be an opportunity to contribute to the literature while providing employers with useful information.

Methodology and Results

A study was conducted in the author’s undergraduate accounting courses at the end of two semesters of coursework. The population of students was from eight classes taught by the author: four classes taught in Fall 2022 and four classes taught in Spring 2023. During those two semesters, the author taught the following courses:

  • ACC250, Principles of Accounting 1
  • ACC251, Principles of Accounting 2
  • ACC470, Auditing

Enrollment across the eight courses taught over two semesters was 259 traditional undergraduate students (N = 259). Of those students, 160 students completed the optional and anonymous survey (n = 160). The response rate was 61.8%. The study instrument was a short survey created by the author to identify course modality preferences and reasons for those preferences. This study focused on two research questions.

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What is the work modality preference of graduating students as they enter the workforce? 

As many traditional undergraduate students had little to no work experience, the author used course modality preference as a proxy for work environment preferences. 

Many students grew up with F2F learning, so they had previous experience with that modality. Many students endured virtual synch learning during the pandemic, so they also had previous experience with that modality. Not all students, though, had previous experience in a blended modality. During the semesters studied, the author taught all courses in a blended modality. This ensured that all potential study participants had actual experience in a blended learning modality.

The author taught Monday / Wednesday / Friday (MWF) courses. Monday and Wednesday class sessions were taught F2F in a physical classroom on campus. Friday class sessions were taught live online in a virtual synch environment using the University’s Cisco WebEx meeting platform. Friday class sessions included lectures and other class activities over WebEx similar to the established activities of the MW F2F class sessions. The only difference between the MW and the F class sessions was modality. In addition, all three class sessions (MWF) each week were required. Meaning, the Friday class sessions were not optional or “on their own” as might be the case in other modalities not discussed in this study. 

At the end of the semesters of study, the students had actual experience in a blended learning modality. This meant the author had a high level of confidence that students had actual experience in all three learning modalities covered in the survey. This experience ensured that students could more appropriately and more accurately respond to the modality preference survey question based on their own experience and not on preconceived thoughts, ideas, or expectations. The survey question was as follows:

If you could take this accounting class again, which delivery format would you prefer for this class?

  • Face-to-face only: Face-to-face in a classroom on campus for every class session (no live virtual/online meetings on Friday).
  • Blended: Face-to-face in a classroom on campus on Mondays and Wednesdays. Live virtual meetings in WebEx on Fridays.
  • Virtual Synch only: Live online meetings in WebEx for every class session on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

Even though it was a multiple-choice question, it required reflection from the students. Without saying it this way, the essence of what the question asked is as follows, “Now, knowing what you know, if you could do it again, what learning modality would you pick for this class?”

Since students have limited to no work experience, the results can be extrapolated from the learning environment to the work environment. In other words, the students’ preferences in the classroom are used as a proxy to gauge their workplace preferences.

RQ1 Results

Graph 1 summarizes the survey responses (n = 160) by learning modality by semester. Response counts are categorized and totaled by each subcategory including the semester, modality, and totals.

Graph 1: Responses by Modality by Semester

 

The results indicate the numerical distribution of the student learning preferences by semester. Out of the 160 responses, 58 students preferred F2F only, 94 students preferred blended learning, 5 students preferred virtual synch only, and 3 students did not respond to this question. Also, out of the 160 responses, 99 responses were from students in the Fall 2022 semester and 61 responses were from the Spring 2023 semester.

Graph 2 summarizes the survey responses (n = 160) by learning modality by course. Response counts are categorized and totaled by each subcategory including the course, modality, and totals.

Graph 2: Responses by Modality by Course

The results provide a different perspective of the same data: the numerical distribution of the student learning preferences by course. The totals by modality (column totals in Table 1 and Table 2) remain the same: Out of the 160 responses, 58 students preferred F2F only, 94 students preferred blended learning, 5 students preferred virtual synch only, and 3 students did not respond to this question. Also, out of the 160 responses, 111 responses were from students in ACC250, 42 responses were from students in ACC251, and 7 responses were from students in ACC470.

Since ACC250 and ACC251 are offered in sequence and numerous degree programs require both courses, students may have taken the survey in ACC250 in Fall 2022 and then may have taken it again in ACC251 in Spring 2023. In order to keep the survey brief, this and other demographic information were not included in the survey questions.

Graph 1 and Graph 2 are related in that they summarize the distribution of student preferences. The difference is how the data is categorized either by semester or by course. As the modality preference numbers are the same regardless of the subcategory, they are discussed together. Based on the number of student responses for each modality preference category, there are almost twice as many students who prefer blended learning over F2F-only learning. These results indicate that more students prefer a blended approach to learning based on the number of responses.

Graph 3 summarizes the percent of survey responses by learning modality by semester. Response percentages are categorized by each subcategory including the semester and modality.

Graph 3: Response Percentages by Modality by Semester

 

The results indicate the percent distribution of the student learning preferences by semester. Out of the 160 responses, 36% of all students preferred F2F only, 59% of all students preferred blended, 3% of all students preferred virtual synch only, and 2% of all students did not respond to this question.

While this is not as obvious when looking at the number of responses, the results are clearer when analyzed as a percent of the total as well as percents by semester. Since ACC250 and ACC251 are offered in sequence and numerous degree programs require both courses, students may have taken the author’s course and the survey in ACC250 in Fall 2022 and then may have taken the author’s course and the survey again in ACC251 in Spring 2023. As all surveys were anonymous, this aspect of the data was not analyzed. 

It is interesting to note that the percent of students who prefer combined or blended learning increased from 58% in Fall 2022 to 61% in Spring 2023. In contrast, the percent of students who prefer F2F-only and virtual synch-only modalities decreased during that same period: F2F-only decreased from 37% in Fall 2022 to 34% of students in Spring 2023 and virtual synch only decreased from 4% in Fall 2022 to 2% in Spring 2023. This could mean that as students become more familiar with and accustomed to the blended modality, the more they prefer it over other modalities.

Graph 4 summarizes the percent of survey responses by learning modality by course. Response percentages are categorized by each subcategory including the course and modality.

Graph 4: Response Percentages by Modality by Course

 

The results provide a different perspective of the same data: the percent distribution of the student learning preferences by course. Out of the 160 responses, 36% of all students preferred F2F only, 59% of all students preferred blended, 3% of all students preferred virtual synch only, and 2% of all students did not respond to this question.

The results are clear when analyzed as a percent of the total as well as percents by the course. Since ACC250 and ACC251 are offered in sequence and numerous degree program require both courses, students may have taken the author’s course and the survey in ACC250 in Fall 2022 and then may have taken the author’s course and the survey again in ACC251 in Spring 2023. As all surveys were anonymous, this aspect of the data was not analyzed.

It is interesting to note that by course progression from ACC250 to ACC251, the percent of students who prefer combined or blended learning increased from 59% in ACC250 to 60% in ACC251. In addition, the percent of students who prefer F2F-only learning also increased from 34% in ACC250 to 40% in ACC251. In contrast, the percent of students who prefer virtual synch-only modalities decreased between courses from 5% in ACC250 to 0% in ACC251. This could mean that as students become more familiar with and accustomed to the different modalities, they prefer combined and F2F-only over the virtual synch-only modality. 

Analyzing the results of ACC470 is problematic at best since the number of responses making up the percent is so small (n = 7). With that in mind, though, 57% of students preferred combined or blended learning, 43% preferred F2F-only learning, and 0% preferred virtual synch-only learning. These results suggest that upper-division accounting students prefer more in-person interactions and personal relationships in their courses.

Research Question 2 (RQ2): Why do graduating students have these work environment preferences?

While it is helpful to know what the students’ preferences are, an important consideration is why the students have the preferences they have. 

As previously mentioned, at the end of the semesters of study, the author had a high level of confidence that students had actual experience in all three learning modalities covered in the survey. The students also identified their learning preference in the previous survey question. To better understand the reason for the preference, a follow-up question was included. The survey question was as follows:

Based on your response to [the previous question], what are the top 2 or 3 benefits of the course delivery format you prefer?

This was an open-ended question which allowed for an unstructured response. Students were able to write as much or as little as they wanted to provide insight and rationale in narrative form to discuss the reasons behind their personal preferences. In the previous question, the responses indicated the “what.” With this question, the responses indicated the “why.”

RQ2 Results

Since a vast majority of responses were about blended and F2F-only modalities, the qualitative analysis and discussion of the results will be limited to those two modalities.

Blended learning. For students who preferred blended learning, several themes of benefits emerged from the narrative responses. These major themes included: 1) easier to concentrate (virtually), 2) more flexibility and balance, 3) commute time and cost savings, 4) like the variety, 5) building and maintaining relationships, and 6) physical and mental health.

As the survey question asked for two to three of the reasons for their preference, many of the narrative responses include more than one of the themes listed. As such, full responses they could not be easily grouped by theme but are discussed together. The following are some examples of student narrative responses and the major themes under which they fall. 

One student appreciated the flexibility of blended learning especially as a commuter. The student commented, “… with the WebEx for class for Fridays I think it allows for flexibility with schedules so it is good to have that day online and work around this class. Also, as a commuter student, the Friday requires one less day to travel back and forth from home to school.”

A student noted several benefits of blended learning including geographic flexibility, variety, and concentration. This student stated, “I preferred having the hybrid option as it allowed me to move around and attend class when I wasn’t in town. Additionally, accounting is a hard concept and it was refreshing to have two different methods of attending class in order to provide a variety of methods, and it allowed me to pay attention for a longer duration of time in different settings.”

While flexibility was important to this student, so was creating relationships. The student remarked, “I really enjoy being able to attend class in person since it forces me to be more focused and present however I also appreciate the flexibility of online learning. Therefore I think that hybrid learning is the best option for me. When you are able to attend class in person you are also able to create relationships with classmates and help each other. Online learning however allows for more freedom in when and where you learn. Combination classes give the benefits of both.”

In addition to geographic flexibility, this student appreciated the variety of learning modalities. This student made the following comment, “I like this because I get to have two days of in-person learning but I can choose to do the course virtually on Fridays which makes it easier for me to do it at a coffee shop or somewhere where I feel like the switch up of settings really stimulates my brain and makes me excited to do the work on the days that I have it online.”

This student commented on flexibility and commuting. In addition to that, the student implied that blended learning was helpful the stress and mental health related to F2F learning. The student noted the benefits included, “- Flexibility of schedule due to modality yields better attendance – Less travel as a commuter – break from the high-stress environment of in-person learning”

Finally, this student mentioned four benefits including balance, commute, physical and mental health, and variety. The student commented, “With this format, I am able to balance my work and school schedule easier. As a commuter, having one less day to drive out to Riverside is beneficial for my physical and mental health. I also find that the hybrid format makes it easier to pick up on information during lectures and I can have more time to reach out to my professor if needed.”

It is interesting to note that the literature mentions stress (commuting, work/life balance, etc.), but it did not mention specifically the benefits related to physical and mental health. This is a new theme which emerged beyond what was noted from the literature. [Expand?]

F2F-only learning.

For students who preferred F2F -only learning, several themes emerged from the narrative responses. Interestingly, the responses discussed not only the benefits of F2F learning but also the challenges of the virtual synch portion of the blended learning environment. These major themes included: 1) more engaging and easier to concentrate F2F (harder to concentrate virtually), 2) Internet connectivity issues, 3) hard to see everything online (need two screens), and 4) personal relationships and interaction. As the survey question asked for two to three of the reasons for their preference, many of the narrative responses include more than one of the themes listed. As such, they could not be easily grouped by theme but are discussed together. The following are some examples of student narrative responses and the major themes under which they fall. 

One student commented about distraction and relationships. This student noted, “I like face-to-face because quite honestly it is just hard to pay attention online. There are too many things to be distracted by from the comfort of my home, like my computer, phone, video games, etc. Face to face is much easier to ask questions, there is more of a student teacher connection, and an ease of communication.”

Another student identified interaction as important and indicated difficulties in seeing all the material online. The student commented, “I prefer face-to-face delivery due to the interaction with the professor. I can ask questions instantly. As well, it is easier to take notes on my laptop by looking at the projector screen rather than splitting my screen in half. This makes it challenging to focus on both tasks at once.”

One student acknowledged they are easily distracted online. The student also found it difficult to toggle between screens to see all the course material online. The student said, “I like being in person because it’s easier to follow along and not get as distracted. When I’m at home doing the online class on Fridays, it’s more difficult to follow along with the handouts because switching between screens on my laptop is a bit harder, and I feel more limited. It’s also easier for me to be distracted by others around me than when I’m physically in class.”

This student noted that interacting with the professor is important. The student also mentioned stress associated with having an Internet connection and finding a place to attend online classes. The student noted, “Two of the top benefits for taking an accounting class in person are being able to ask questions directly after class or at any point of confusion. Another benefit to taking an accounting class in person is there will be no need for Internet connectivity stress or having to find a place to attend class.”

Aside from connection and relationships, the responses from those who preferred F2F only included a lot of discussion about the challenges of the online learning portion, specifically distractions, as opposed to the benefits of F2F learning. With proper coaching and tools, students may be able to take steps to overcome those distractions. If the challenges of distractions could be overcome, these students may in fact change their minds and prefer a blended modality.

Implications for Practice

Since students have limited to no work experience, the results previously discussed can be extrapolated from students in the learning environment to employees in the work environment. Specifically, students’ preferences for course modality are used as a proxy to gauge their workplace modality preferences. This can provide insight to employers when they recruit and then retain recent college graduates. 

Depending on the industry and level of supervision needed, employers could consider new employee preferences for working in an office, working from home, or a combined or blended approach as a recruitment and retention tool. As much as possible given business, industry, and work needs, there are several recommendations for employers based on what was noted with students.

First, the results indicated that students like flexibility and variety. Employers can address this by allowing geographic and temporal flexibility where appropriate. This allows employees to work when they want, where they want, and when they want. Employees can work in an environment that works best for them such as the office, their home, a coffee shop, a park, or on the other side of the world. Employees can also work on their own schedules to accommodate personal responsibilities. Working when and where they schedule their work hours can also increase focus, concentration, and productivity since employees aren’t worried about fitting their lives into their work schedule.  

Second, the results indicated that students do not like commuting every day. Employers can address this in conjunction with geographic flexibility by allowing employees to work from locations other than the office. When employees do not have to commute every day, it reduces the time and cost of commuting for employees. This includes the cost of gas, regaining previously lost time spent driving, and reducing the physical and mental stress of driving.

Third, the results indicated that students want reliable, easy-to-use technology. Employers can address this by providing that technology. Employers can provide necessary hardware such as portable laptops, internet service at home or hotspot connections, and multiple screens or devices to make it easier for employees to access their projects. Employers can also provide meaningful and appropriate software including programs, applications, and meeting platforms.

Finally, the results indicated that students want access to and personal relationships with professors and peers. Employers can address this by providing opportunities for connection. One way to do that is to ensure that supervisors are available and approachable. Another way is to include employees in relevant meetings and professional chat groups to build their network within the organization. Other ways to promote connections are providing opportunities for informal interactions such as providing snacks in a breakroom to encourage small talk or small group events outside of business hours. These are some of the ways employers can promote meaningful relationships within the organization.

Future Research

The author is hopeful that the results of this study will lead to continued research in this area. Promoting awareness and use of blended environments could prove beneficial to employers as well as teaching faculty.

The results were limited. One limitation was on the simplicity of the survey instrument. Developing a more robust survey instrument could be beneficial. It could include more demographic information such as gender, age, year in school, major or degree program, types of employment, as well as other controlling variables which may have an impact on the data analysis. The survey instrument could also include additional questions about the details of preferences as well as a Likert-scale to indicate degrees of preference. An additional consideration may be to identify and use a preexisting survey instrument which is already established and has been tested for validity and reliability. 

The results were also limited by the sampling population. The population was limited to students in courses the author taught during two semesters. Expanding the population to students in other courses in the University, alumni, non-alumni stakeholders, and employers would provide additional data and information helpful to this type of analysis.

References

  • Alolaywi, Y. (2021). Learning in crisis: An investigation of Saudi EFL learners’ perceptions of e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian EFL Journal, 28(2.3), 98-119. Retrieved from https://www. elejournals.com/asian-efl-monthly-editions/aej-monthly-edition-2021/volume-28-issue-2-3-april-2021/ 
  • California Baptist University. (2021). MBA+ program at CBU offers new virtual synchronous-learning option. Retrieved from https://calbaptist.edu/news/mba_program_at_cbu_offers_new_virtual_synchronous_learning_option 
  • Cheng, X., Mo, W., & Duan, Y. (2023). Factors contributing to learning satisfaction with blended learning teaching mode among higher education students in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 1–12. https://doi-org.libproxy.calbaptist.edu/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1193675
  • Dangaiso, P., Makudza, F., Jaravaza, D. C., Kusvabadika, J., Makiwa, N., & Gwatinyanya, C. (2023). Evaluating the impact of quality antecedents on university students’ e-learning continuance intentions: A post COVID-19 perspective. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2222654. https://doi-org.libproxy.calbaptist.edu/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2222654
  • 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: Pfeiffer.
  • Kamal, T., Khan, M. A., Hamad, Z., Illiyan, A., Das, A. K., & Alkhuraydili, A. (2023). Perception and challenges of virtual classes with gender digital divide amidst and post-COVID-19 pandemic in Iraq: An empirical analysis. Education Research International, 2023, 3665768, https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3665768 
  • Kang, D., & Park, M. J. (2023). Learner innovativeness, course interaction, and the use of a new educational technology system after the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 100824. https://doi-org.libproxy.calbaptist.edu/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100824
  • Khor, L. K., & Tan, C. L. (2023). Workforce management in the post‐pandemic era: Evidence from multinational companies using grounded theory. Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 42(4), 93–104. https://doi-org.libproxy.calbaptist.edu/10.1002/joe.22174
  • Kim, D. H. (2023). Distance versus face-to-face education of gross anatomy for dental hygiene students: Perceptions and academic achievements of learners. Clinical Anatomy, 36(7), 1016–1026. https://doi-org.libproxy.calbaptist.edu/10.1002/ca.24097 
  • Krajčík, M., Schmidt, D. A., & Baráth, M. (2023). Hybrid work model: An approach to work–life flexibility in a changing environment. Administrative Sciences (2076-3387), 13(6), 150. https://doi-org.libproxy.calbaptist.edu/10.3390/admsci13060150 
  • Le, M. T. T, & Tran, K. V. (2023). Synchronous virtual learning students’ experience and the prospect in Vietnam. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 24(3), 163–177.
  • McCarthy, A., O’Connor, N., Síocháin, O., & Frost, D., (2021). Remote working: Ireland’s National Survey: Phase III Report [online]. NUI Galway Whitaker Institute & Western Development Commission, Galway. Available from. http://whitakerinstitut e.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Remote-Working-National-Survey-Phase-III-Report-final.pdf (accessed 27 September 2023).
  • McKenzie, L. (2021). Survey reveals positive outlook on online instruction post-pandemic. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com 
  • 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
  • Nayak, S., & Pandit, D. (2021). Potential of telecommuting for different employees in the Indian context beyond COVID-19 lockdown. Transport Policy, 111, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.07.010
  • Shakti, D., Ray, D., & Gupta, D. (2021). Factors affecting work from office and work from anywhere for employees: A study. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 11(10), pp. 251-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.10.2021.p11827 
  • Smite, D., Moe, N. B., Hildrum, J., Huerta, J. G., & Mendez, D. (2023). Work-from-home is here to stay: Call for flexibility in post-pandemic work policies. Journal of Systems & Software. 2023, 195 doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111552 
  • Stefaniec, A., Brazil, W., Whitney, W., & Caulfield, B. (2022). Desire to work from home: Results of an Irish study. Journal of Transport Geography, 104, https://doi-org.libproxy.calbaptist.edu/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103416
  • Wood, J. (2022). Hybrid working: Why there’s a widening gap between leaders and employees. Forum Agenda. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/12/hybrid-working-remote-work-office-senior-leaders/ 
  • Yadavalli, S. (2020). Top 4 Workplace Challenges in the Post COVID-19 Era, [online]. Available at: https://aithority.com/hrtechnology/top-4-workplace-challenges-in-the-post-covid-19-era/ [Accessed 27 September 2023].