Blending Makes the Difference: Comparison of Blended and Traditional Instruction on Students’ Performance and Attitudes in Computer Literacy

Abstract

Purpose of this study is to compare students’ course achievement and attitudes towards computers in computer literacy course between two course delivery methods: Blended and face-to-face (FTF). Using a pretest-posttest control group experimental design model, participants were assigned to experimental and control groups purposefully in order to achieve group equivalency. The study was conducted during the fall of the 2006-2007 academic year. Participants were 179 students from the Faculty of Education at Uludag University in Turkey. 86 students were taught with the blended mode of delivery, which involved using both FTF and online modes of instruction; 93 students were taught with FTF mode alone. At the beginning of the study, prior knowledge about computer literacy and attitudes towards computers were measured in both groups. At the end of the study, students’ final course scores and attitude scores towards computers were evaluated. Data were analyzed using independent samples t-tests. A statistically significant difference was found between the FTF and blended group (p < 0.05). The analysis showed that the blended group was more successful than the traditional group in terms of both course achievement and attitudes towards computers.

Keywords

• Blended learning, Face-to-face instruction, Computer literacy, Attitudes toward computers

References

1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Sloan-C.
2. Amrein-Beardsley, A., Foulger, T. S., & Toth, M. (2007). Examining the development of a hybrid degree program: Using student and instructor data to inform decision-making. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 331-357.
3. Ayala, J. (2009). Blended learning as a new approach to social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 277-288. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
4. Berberoglu, G., & Çalıkoglu, G. (1992). Turkce bilgisayar tutum olceginin yapı geçerliliği. Egitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Dergisi , 24(2), 841-845.
5. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 131-146.
6. Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers and Education, 51, 474-483.
7. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
8. Finlay, W., Desmet, C., & Evans, L. (2004). Is it the technology or the teacher? A comparison of online and traditional english composition classes. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 23(1), 163-180.

9. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 94-105.
10. Guiller, J., Durndell, A., & Ross, A. (2008). Peer interaction and critical thinking: Face-to-face or online discussion? Learning and Instruction, 18, 187-200.
11. Hauck, W. E. (2006). Online versus traditional face-to-face learning in a large introductory course. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences , 98(4), 27-29.
12. Lin, Q. (2008). Student satisfactions in four mixed courses in elementary teacher education program. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 53-59.
13. Liu, Y. (2007). A comparative study of learning styles between online and traditional students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 41-63.
14. Marsh, G. E., McFadden, A. C., & Price, B. (2003). Blended instruction: Adapting conventional instruction for large classes. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 6(4).
15. Osguthorpe, T. R., & Graham, R. C. (2003). Blended learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–233.
16. Pang, K. (2009). Instructional design strategies for effective blended learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development , 20(4), 3-8.
17. Robertson, J. S., Grant, M. M., & Jackson, L. (2005). Is online instruction perceived as effective as campus instruction by graduate students in education? Internet and Higher Education, 8, 73–86.
18. Russell, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill: North Carolina State University.
19. Schrum, L., Burbank, M. D., & Capps, R. (2007). Preparing future teachers for diverse schools in an online learning. The Internet and Higher Education , 10(3), 204-211.
20. Shen, Q., Chung, J. K., Challis, D., & Cheung, R. C. (2007). A comparative study of student performance in traditional mode and online mode of learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 15(1), 30-40.
21. Silver, S., & Nickel, L. (2007). Are online tutorials effective? a comparison of online and classroom library instruction methods. Research Strategies, 20, 389-396.
22. Smith, G. G., & Kurthen, H. (2007). Front-stage and back-stage in hybrid e-learning face-to-face courses. International Journal on E-Learning , 6(3), 455-474.
23. Smith, S. (2005). The positive and challenging aspects of learning online and in traditional face- to-face classrooms: A student perspective. Journal of Special Education Technology (20), 52-59.
24. Sweat-Guy, R., & Wishart, C. (2008). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of instructional strategies on student performance in traditional and e-learning formats. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology (5), 149-163.
25. Tang, M., & Byrne, R. (2007). Regular versus online versus blended: A qualitative description of the advantages of the electronic modes and a qualitative evaluation. International Journal on ELearning , 6(2), 257-266.
26. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, D.C.
27. US Report on Distance Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.checkpoint- elearning.com/article/5821.html
28. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning , 6(1), 81-94.
29. Yoon, S.-W., & Lim, D. H. (2007). Strategic blending: A conceptual framework to improve learning and performance. International Journal on E-Learning , 6(3), 475-489.
30. Correspondence: Adem Uzun, Instructor, Department of Computer Education and
31. Instructional Technologies, Faculty of Education, Uludag University, Gorukle, Bursa, Turkey