Effects of a blended learning approach on student outcomes in a graduate-level public health course

BMC Medical Education

Marc T Kiviniemi¹ 

[1] Department of Community Health and Health Behavior, University at Buffalo, 314 Kimball Tower, 3435 Main Street, Buffalo, NY, USA

关键词: Student learning;    Online education;    Graduate education in public health;    Flipped classroom;    Blended learning;   

Others  :  1118238
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-47

 received in 2013-10-23, accepted in 2014-03-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Blended learning approaches, in which in-person and online course components are combined in a single course, are rapidly increasing in health sciences education. Evidence for the relative effectiveness of blended learning versus more traditional course approaches is mixed.

Method

The impact of a blended learning approach on student learning in a graduate-level public health course was examined using a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control group design. Exam scores and course point total data from a baseline, “traditional” approach semester (n = 28) was compared to that from a semester utilizing a blended learning approach (n = 38). In addition, student evaluations of the blended learning approach were evaluated.

Results

There was a statistically significant increase in student performance under the blended learning approach (final course point total d = 0.57; a medium effect size), even after accounting for previous academic performance. Moreover, student evaluations of the blended approach were very positive and the majority of students (83%) preferred the blended learning approach.

Conclusions

Blended learning approaches may be an effective means of optimizing student learning and improving student performance in health sciences courses.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kiviniemi; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Graham CR, Woodfield W, Harrison JB: A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet High Educ 18:4-14. in press
• [2]Osguthorpe RT, Graham CR: Blended learning environments: definitions and directions. Q Rev Dist Educ 2003, 4(3):227-233.
• [3]Garrison DR, Vaughan ND: Blended Learning In Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008.
• [4]Mazur E: Farewell, Lecture? Science 2009, 323:50-51.
• [5]Dowling C, Godfrey J, Gyles N: Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students’ learning outcomes? Acc Educ 2003, 12(4):373-391.
• [6]Larson DK, Chung-Hsien S: Comparing student performance: online versus blended versus face-to-face. J Async Learn Network 2009, 13(1):31-42.
• [7]Anderson K, May FA: Does the method of instruction matter? An experimental examination of information literacy instruction in the online, blended, and face-to-face classrooms. J Acad Librarian 2010, 36(6):495-500.
• [8]Bains M, Reynolds PA, McDonald F, Sherriff M: Effectiveness and acceptability of face-to-face, blended and e-learning: a randomised trial of orthodontic undergraduates. Eur J Dent Educ 2011, 15(2):110-117.
• [9]Xu D, Jaggars SS: Online and hybrid course enrollment and performance in Washington State community and technical colleges. In vol. Working Paper No. 31. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Columbia University; 2011.
• [10]Ross TK, Bell PD: “No Significant Difference” only on the surface. Int J Instr Technol Dist Learn 2007, 4:7.
• [11]Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: ERlbaum; 1988.
• [12]Cohen J: A Power Primer. Psychol Bull 1992, 112(1):155-159.
• [13]Chickering AW, Gamson ZF: Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bull 1987, 39(7):3-7.
• [14]Chickering AW, Ehrmann SC: Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bull 1996, 49(2):3-6.