Abstract
Research has suggested that learning approaches such as blended learning can enhance both the quality of instruction and student learning outcomes in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics) education. However, little is known about how such instructional approaches affect learning outcomes in the context of Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel (CEGEP) pre-university science students. The present study focused on a college Mechanics course at a CEGEP that used blended learning, and compared the affects of the two learning modes (blended versus traditional) on student academic performance. Overall, the study revealed that students in the blended classroom (treatment) experienced more conceptual change and higher performance compared to the students in the traditional lecture-based class (control group). The findings offer support for the push to implement alternative approaches to instruction such as blended learning. Moreover, the study also improves understanding of the affects of approaches such as blended learning on understudied samples such as CEGEPs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/blending-in.pdf
Baber, L. (2015). Considering the Interest-Convergence Dilemma in STEM Education. The Review of Higher Education, 38(2), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2015.0004.
Baldwin, R. (2009). The climate for undergraduate teaching and learning in STEM fields. New Directions For Teaching And Learning, 2009(117), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.340.
Bazelais, P., Lemay, D. J., & Doleck, T. (2016). How Does Grit Impact Students’ Academic Achievement in Science? European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 33–43.
Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T. (2018). Investigating the Impact of Blended Learning on Academic Performance in a First Semester College Physics Course. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(1), 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0099-8.
Bergmann, J. & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education.
Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R., Tamim, R., & Abrami, P. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105.
Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.08.001.
Deschacht, N., & Goeman, K. (2015). The effect of blended learning on course persistence and performance of adult learners: A difference-in-differences analysis. Computers & Education, 87, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.020.
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783.
Dori, Y., & Belcher, J. (2005). How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students' Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts? Journal of The Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3.
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Bulletin, 7, 1–12.
Else-Quest, N., Hyde, J., & Linn, M. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053.
Garrison, D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001.
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women's representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659.
Greene, J., DeStefano, L., Burgon, H., & Hall, J. (2006). An educative, values-engaged approach to evaluating STEM educational programs. New Directions for Evaluation, 2006(109), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.178.
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497.
Kim, K., Bonk, C., & Teng, Y. (2009). The present state and future trends of blended learning in workplace learning settings across five countries. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(3), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9031-2.
Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and Instructional Factors Influencing Learning Outcomes within a Blended Learning Environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 282–293.
López-Pérez, M., Pérez-López, M., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023.
Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C., & Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics, 74(2), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2162549.
Mayer, R. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology's second. Educational Psychologist, 31(3), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_1.
Mazur, E. (2013). The flipped classroom will redefine the role of educators. Interview with applied physics professor Eric Mazur delves into educational philosophy. Retrieved from: https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2013/03/flipped classroom-will-redefine-role-educators.
National Research Council (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Committee on highly successful science programs for K-12 science education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press.
Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.003.
Pereira, J., Pleguezuelos, E., Merí, A., Molina-Ros, A., Molina-Tomás, M., & Masdeu, C. (2007). Effectiveness of using blended learning strategies for teaching and learning human anatomy. Medical Education, 41(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02672.x.
Porter, W., Graham, C., Spring, K., & Welch, K. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011.
So, H. (2009). Is Blended Learning a Viable Option in Public Health Education? A Case Study of Student Satisfaction With a Blended Graduate Course. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 15(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.phh.0000342945.25833.1d.
Stubbs, M., Martin, I., & Endlar, L. (2006). The structuration of blended learning: putting holistic design principles into practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00530.x.
VanDerLinden, K. (2014). Blended Learning as Transformational Institutional Learning. New Directions for Higher Education, 2014(165), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20085.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.
Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning.
Zhang, P., Ding, L., & Mazur, E. (2017). Peer Instruction in introductory physics: A method to bring about positive changes in students’ attitudes and beliefs. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.13.010104.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bazelais, P., Doleck, T. Blended learning and traditional learning: A comparative study of college mechanics courses. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2889–2900 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9748-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9748-9