Ph.D. Candidate Maria GIANNOUSI Lecturer Nikolaos VERNADAKIS Associate Professor Vassiliki DERRI Associate Professor Panagiotis ANTONIOU Professor Efthimis KIOUMOURTZOGLOU Department of Physical Education and Sport Science Democritus University of Thrace, 69100 Komotini, GREECE

Year 2014, Volume: 15 Issue: 1, 99 - 113, 01.03.2014

Maria Gıannousı Nikolaos Vernadakıs Vassiliki Derrı Panagiotis Antonıou Efthimis Kıoumourtzoglou

https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.99593

Cited By: 2

Abstract

A COMPARISON OF STUDENT KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND BLENDED INSTRUCTION IN A PHYSICAL EDUCATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD COURSE

Abstract

ed learning model combines different advantages of face to face education and e-learning to ensure an effective learning environment for students. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of traditional and blended instruction, in students´ knowledge in a Physical Education in Early Childhood course. For the purpose of this study a knowledge test was created and item analysis and validity and reliability tests were conducted. The course was developed to meet the learning needs of students and the course’s objectives. The curriculum lasted 13 weeks and included for the traditional instruction 12 face to face lectures and for the mixed 7 face to face lectures and 6 on line lectures. The software platform supporting the operation of blended instruction was the course management system E-Class. The study involved 60 students, (35 men, 25 women) aged 19-23 years old (M=20,22, SD=.98). Data analysis indicated that the knowledge test was valid and reliable. Although both groups improved their cognitive learning in this course, the blended learning group was more successful than the traditional on students´ achievement. Based on the findings, blended instruction appears as an alternative teaching practice that should be embraced by educators, in order to assist students to improve their performance.

Keywords

Blended learning instruction, traditional learning instruction, knowledge test

References

• Abraham, A. (2007). Student centred teaching of accounting to engineering students:
• Comparing blended learning with traditional approaches. Proceedings of ASCILITE, Singapore. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ascilite) 2007 - ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning, 2-5 December 2007, Singapore, 1- 9 http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/abraham.pdf
• Carmody, K. & Berge, Z. (2005). Elemental analysis of the online learning experience,
• International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 1(3), 108-119. Cooner, T. S. (2010). Creating opportunities for students in large cohorts to reflect in and on practice: lessons learnt from a formative evaluation of students’ experiences of a technology-enhanced blended learning design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 271–286.
• 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 & Education, 5(1), 474–483.
• Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P. D. & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local
• Designs , edited by C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, pp. 195–208. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing El-Deghaidy, H. & Nouby, A. (2008). Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme. Computers & Education, 51(3), 988-1006. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0360131507001273
• Garrison, D., R. & Kanuka, H. (2004) Blended learning: Uncovering transformative potential in higher education, The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.
• Ginns, P., Prosser, M. & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher education: the perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 603–615.
• Gomez, J. & Igado, M. (2008). Blended Learning: The Key to Success in a Training
• Company. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(8). Graham, C. R. (2005). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
• Green, B. S. & Salkind, J. N. (2007). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M. & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiplechoice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309-334.
• Kabitsis, C. & Charachousou-Kabitsi, Y. (1993). Research Methods in Sports Sciences.
• Statistical Analysis - Evaluation. Thessaloniki: Meandros. Kerres, M. & De Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2/3), 101–113.
• Larson, D., K. & Sung, C., H. (2009). Comparing Student Performance: Online versus
• Blended versus Face-to-Face, Journal of Asynchornous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31-42. Laurillard, D., 2002. Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies, second ed. Routledge Falmer, London.
• Macedo-Rouet, M., Ney, M., Charles, S. & Lallich-Boidin, G. (2009). Students’ performance and satisfaction with Web vs. paper-based practice quizzes and lecture notes. Computers &
• Education, 53(2), 375-384. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0360131509000633
• McFarlin, B. K. (2008). Hybrid lecture-online format increases student grades in an undergraduate exercise physiology course at a large urban university. Advances in
• Physiology Education, 32, 86-91. Retrieved May 21 2010, from http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/32/1/86?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10
• &RESULTFORMAT=&author1=McFarlin&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance &resourcetype=HWCIT Melton B., Graf H. & Chopak-Foss J. (2009). Achievement and Satisfaction in Blended
• Learning versus Traditional General Health Course Designs. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl Mood, D. P. (1989). Measurement Methodology for Knowledge Tests. In M.J. Safrit & T.M.
• Wood (Eds.), Measurement Concepts in Physical Education and Exercise Science (pp. 251- 269). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. NASPE. (2007). Initial guidelines for online physical education [Position paper]. Reston, VA: Author.
• O’Donnell, A. M., Hmelo-Silver, C. & Erkens, G. (2006). Collaborative, learning, reasoning, and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Pereira, J., Pleguezuelos, E., Meri, A., Molina-Ros, A., Molina-Tomas, M. & Masdeu, C. (2007). Effectiveness of using blended learning strategies for teaching and learning in human anatomy. Medical Education, 41 (2), 189-195.
• Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 13 (1), 7-18.
• Reasons, S. G. (2004). Hybrid courses: hidden dangers? Distance Education. Report, 8(7), 3–
• Safrit, M. J. & Wood, T. M. (1995). Introduction to Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. (3rd ed). USA: Mc Graw-Hill.
• Salomon, G. & Ben-Zvi, D. (2006). The difficult marriage between education and technology: Is the marriage doomed? In M. Boekaerts, F. D. L. Verschaffel, & S. Vosniadou
• (Eds.). Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends: Essays in honor of Erik De Corte (pp. 209–222). Elsevier. 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.
• Sparrow, L., Sparrow, H. & Swan, P. (2000). Student centred learning: Is it possible? In A.
• Herrmann & M.M. Kulski (Eds.), Flexible Futures in Tertiary Teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4 February 2000. Perth: Curtin University of
• Technology. Available http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/confs/tlf/tlf2000/sparrow.html.
• Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge.
• Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Thomas, J. R. & Nelson, J. K. (1996). Research methods in physical activity. (3rd ed.).
• Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(5), 28–38.
• Vernadakis, N., Antoniou, P., Giannousi, M., Zetou, E. & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2011).
• Comparing hybrid learning with traditional approaches on learning the Microsoft Office Power Point 2003 program in tertiary education. Computers & Education, 56(1), 188-199.
• Zachopoulou, E. (2007). Physical education at the beginning of the 21st Century: Goals,
• Objectives, aims in the Early Childhood. Thessaloniki: Christodoulides Editions.