University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology

Adelaide Freitas; António Jorge Neves; Floriano Viseu; Márcia Lemos-silva; Natacha Oliveira; Carolina Alves; Ana Luisa Abreu; Paula Carvalho

doi:10.17275/per.25.67.12.5

EN

University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology

Abstract

The times of the last pandemic that plagued humanity challenged educators to find alternatives to face-to-face teaching, which arose through technological applications. Based on the symbiosis between face-to-face teaching and distance learning, this study seeks to gain insight into the perceptions of Mathematics and Biomedical Sciences students at a Portuguese public university regarding the b-learning methodology, as well as to identify the underlying factors that determine these perceptions, through their responses to an online survey. Adopting a quantitative approach, this study describes the students’ perceptions of the two courses, identifying characteristics related to their role in this learning modality. An exploratory factor analysis revealed four factors: learner receptivity towards the distance component, learner-learner interaction, learner-instructor interaction and transactional distance. The present findings revealed significant differences between the two courses, particularly in relation to the first factor. Mathematics students had lower factor scores compared to Biomedical Sciences students. Spearman correlation analysis identified effective time management as a crucial work habit associated with all four factors. Regarding the availability of resources, successful adaptation to distance teaching and learning platforms emerged as the primary characteristic correlated to the four factors. Additionally, learner receptivity towards the distance component, learner-instructor interaction and transactional distance were identified as the main factors associated with student motivation towards b-learning. This study suggests that while the b-learning approach proves to be suitable in terms of facilitating dialogue, the distance component has revealed its weakness, especially posing greater challenges for Mathematics students.

Keywords

b-learning, distance learning, factorial analysis, transactional distance, correlation

Thanks

Work partially supported by CIDMA (Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications, University of Aveiro) under the "Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia" (FCT, https://ror.org/00snfqn58) Multi-Annual Financing Program for R&D Units, project UID/04106; and by CIEd – Research Centre on Education of the Institute of Education of University of Minho (UID/01661/2020), through national funds of FCT/MCTES-PT, namely the Pluriannual Program for the Funding of R&D Units.

References

Achuthan, K., Kolil, V. K., Muthupalani, S., & Raman, R. (2024). Transactional distance theory in distance learning: Past, current, and future research trends. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(1), ep493. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14131
Al-Rawashdeh, A., Mohammed, E. Y., Al Arab, A. R., Alara, M., & Al-Rawashdeh, B. (2021). Advantages and disadvantages of using e-learning in university education: Analyzing students’ perspectives. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 19(3), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.19.3.2168
Bağrıacık Yılmaz, A. (2023). The Relationship between Satisfaction, Interaction, E-learning Readiness, and Academic Achievement in Online Learning. Open Praxis, 15(3), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.15.3.578
Bawaneh, A. (2021). The satisfaction level of undergraduate science students towards using e-learning and virtual classes in exceptional condition covid-19 crisis. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.849882
Bergamin, P., Ziska, S., & Groner, R. (2010). Structural equation modeling of factors affecting success in student’s performance in ODL-programs: Extending quality management concepts. Open Praxis, 4(1), 18–25. https://openpraxis.org/articles/218
Bervell, B., & Arkorful, V. (2020). LMS-enabled blended learning utilization in distance tertiary education: establishing the relationships among facilitating conditions, voluntariness of use and use behaviour. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0183-9
Bringula, R., Reguyal, J. J., Tan, D. D., & Ulfa, S. (2021). Mathematics self-concept and challenges of learners in an online learning environment during COVID-19 pandemic. Smart Learn. Environ. 8, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00168-5
Caird, S., & Roy, R. (2019). Blended Learning and Sustainable Development. In W. L. Filho (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education (pp. 107–116). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63951-2_197-1
Cavanaugh, J., Jacquemin, S. J., & Junker, C. R. (2023). Variation in Student Perceptions of Higher Education Course Quality and Difficulty as a Result of Widespread Implementation of Online Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(3), 1787–1802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09596-9
Christensen, E. W., Anakwe, U. P., & Kessler, E. H. (2001). Receptivity to distance learning: The effect of technology, reputation, constraints, and learning preferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2001.10782314

Cobo, C., & Moravec, J. (2011). Aprendizaje invisible: hacia una nueva ecología de la educación [Invisible Learning: Toward a new ecology of education]. Laboratori de Mitjans Interactius. Publicacions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona. https://www.uv.es/bellochc/MasterPoliticas/Cobo_Moravec.pdf
Conklin, S., Ovarzun, B., Kim, S., & Dikkers, A.G. (2024). Exploring the Relationships of Learners and Instructors in Online Courses. Online Learning, 28(4), (257-281). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i4.3934
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
Ekwunife-Orakwue, K. C. V., & Teng, T. L. (2014). The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education, 78(1), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011
Fox J (2022). polycor: Polychoric and Polyserial Correlations. R package version 0.8-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=polycor
Freitas, A., Neves, A. J., & Carvalho, P. (2020). Perceção de estudantes de Matemática sobre a aprendizagem a distância: um caso de estudo no contexto da pandemia COVID-19. Indagatio didactica, 12(5), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.34624/id.v12i5.23472
Gall, M., Gall, P., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Allyn and Bacon.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass.
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. 2–21). Pfeiffer Publishing.
Gross, J., & Ligges, U. (2015). nortest: Tests for Normality. R package version 1.0-4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nortest
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
Karaoglan-Yilmaz, F., Zhang, K., Ustun, A., & Yilmaz, R. (2022). Transactional distance perceptions, student engagement, and course satisfaction in flipped learning: A correlational study. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(2), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2091603
Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C. (2016). Student characteristics and learning outcomes in a blended learning environment intervention in a Ugandan University. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(3), 181–195. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107126.pdf
Kuo, Y-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
Lencastre, J. A., & Coutinho, C. (2015). Blended learning. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Org.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Third Edition, Volume II, 1360-1368. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch129
Lin, B., & Vassar, J. A. (2009). Determinants for success in online learning communities, International Journal of Web-based Communities, 5(3), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2009.025210
Mahande, R., & Akram. (2021). Motivational factors underlying the use of online learning system in higher education: an analysis of measurement model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.849888
Min, W., & Yu, Z. (2023). A systematic review of critical success factors in blended learning. Education Sciences, 13(5), 469. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050469
Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (v. 1, pp. 22–38). Routledge.
Mpungose, C. B. (2020). Emergent transition from face-to-face to online learning in a South African University in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00603-x
Nicholson, P. (2007). A History of E-Learning. In B. Fernández-Manjón, J. M. Sánchez-Pérez, J. A. Gómez-Pulido, M. A. Vega-Rodríguez, & J. Bravo-Rodríguez (Eds.), Computers and Education (pp. 1–11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4914-9_1
Ocak, M. A., & Ünsal, N. Ö. (2021). A Content Analysis of Blended Learning Studies Conducted during Covid-19 Pandemic Period. Akademik Açı, 1(2), s. 175-210. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1975480
OECD (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and skills. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-en
OECD (2022). Trends shaping education 2022. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/6ae8771a-en
Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Sloan Consortium.
Rahman, L. A., Omar, N., Fatzel, F. H. M., & Isa, N. S. M. (2022). Predictors of Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning in Online Distance Learning: The Effects of Self-efficacy and Interaction. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(10), 785–803. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i10/14804
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Austria.
Regmi, A., Mao, X., Qi, Q., Tang, W., & Yang, K. (2024). Students’ perception and self-efficacy in blended learning of medical nutrition course: A mixed-method research. BMC Med Educ 24, 1411. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06339-5
Revelle, W. (2024). psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. R package version 2.4.12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00158-6
Salas-Rueda, R. A. (2020). Perception of students on blended learning considering data science and machine learning. Campus Virtuales, 9(1), 125–135.
Sarıtepeci, M., & Çakır, H. (2015). The Effect of Blended Learning Environments on Student’s Academic Achievement and Student Engagement: A Study on Social Studies Course. Education and Science, 40(177), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.2592
Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396–413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004
Signorell, A. (2024). DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics. R package version 0.99.56. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DescTools
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003
Vallée, A., Blacher, J., Cariou, A., & Sorbets, E. (2020). Blended learning compared to traditional learning in medical education: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res, 22(8):e16504. https://doi.org/10.2196/16504
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Yu, Z. (2022). Sustaining student roles, digital literacy, learning achievements, and motivation in online learning environments during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 14(8), 4388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084388
Zhao, L., Hwang, W., & Shih, T. (2021). Investigation of the Physical Learning Environment of Distance Learning Under COVID-19 and Its Influence on Students’ Health and Learning Satisfaction. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 19(2), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.20210401.oa4

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Higher Education Studies (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Adelaide Freitas ^*
0000-0002-4685-1615
Portugal

António Jorge Neves
0000-0001-8435-5842
Portugal

Floriano Viseu
0000-0002-8221-6870
Portugal

Márcia Lemos-silva
0000-0001-5466-0504
Portugal

Natacha Oliveira
0000-0002-2570-8916
Portugal

Carolina Alves
0000-0003-0629-3759
Portugal

Ana Luisa Abreu
0000-0003-0220-3963
Portugal

Paula Carvalho
0000-0002-9463-4340
Portugal

Early Pub Date

September 6, 2025

Publication Date

September 1, 2025

Submission Date

March 14, 2025

Acceptance Date

July 3, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 12 Number: 5

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.67.12.5

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA63WE66YZ

APA

Freitas, A., Neves, A. J., Viseu, F., Lemos-silva, M., Oliveira, N., Alves, C., Abreu, A. L., & Carvalho, P. (2025). University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology. Participatory Educational Research, 12(5), 133-153. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.67.12.5

AMA

1.Freitas A, Neves AJ, Viseu F, et al. University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology. PER. 2025;12(5):133-153. doi:10.17275/per.25.67.12.5

Chicago

Freitas, Adelaide, António Jorge Neves, Floriano Viseu, et al. 2025. “University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology”. Participatory Educational Research 12 (5): 133-53. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.67.12.5.

EndNote

Freitas A, Neves AJ, Viseu F, Lemos-silva M, Oliveira N, Alves C, Abreu AL, Carvalho P (September 1, 2025) University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology. Participatory Educational Research 12 5 133–153.

IEEE

[1]A. Freitas et al., “University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology”, PER, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 133–153, Sept. 2025, doi: 10.17275/per.25.67.12.5.

ISNAD

Freitas, Adelaide - Neves, António Jorge - Viseu, Floriano - Lemos-silva, Márcia - Oliveira, Natacha - Alves, Carolina - Abreu, Ana Luisa - Carvalho, Paula. “University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology”. Participatory Educational Research 12/5 (September 1, 2025): 133-153. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.67.12.5.

JAMA

1.Freitas A, Neves AJ, Viseu F, Lemos-silva M, Oliveira N, Alves C, Abreu AL, Carvalho P. University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology. PER. 2025;12:133–153.

MLA

Freitas, Adelaide, et al. “University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology”. Participatory Educational Research, vol. 12, no. 5, Sept. 2025, pp. 133-5, doi:10.17275/per.25.67.12.5.

Vancouver

1.Adelaide Freitas, António Jorge Neves, Floriano Viseu, Márcia Lemos-silva, Natacha Oliveira, Carolina Alves, Ana Luisa Abreu, Paula Carvalho. University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology. PER. 2025 Sep. 1;12(5):133-5. doi:10.17275/per.25.67.12.5

27707

Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 International Lisance

download?token=eyJhdXRoX3JvbGVzIjpbXSwiZW5kcG9pbnQiOiJqb3VybmFsIiwib3JpZ2luYWxuYW1lIjoicGVyIHNjb3B1cyBpc3RhdHRpc3Rpay5wbmciLCJwYXRoIjoiOTg5Ni9mN2E1LzU3ZDcvNmEyMmIyZmFlMGJkYjYuMDUyNjIyMDMucG5nIiwiZXhwIjoxNzgwNjYyNTM5LCJub25jZSI6IjcxYzczMjhhOTdkOWYxM2ExZjE2NWExYjQyMzMyOWJhIn0.g4uvJoi6Oy8W0gRoUNW-d5FO9m4u30pEA0l1h8DwzSE

Abstract

University Students’ Perceptions of the B-Learning Methodology

Abstract

Keywords

Thanks

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Early Pub Date

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite