Content uploaded by Arif Altun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arif Altun on May 07, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
E-leader Krakow, 2008
Learner Satisfaction on Blended Learning
Petek Askar and Arif Altun
Hacettepe University, Turkey
Hale Ilgaz
Ankara University, Turkey
Abstract
This paper focuses on learner satisfaction as a measure of quality of blended learning.
Blended learning combines multiple delivery media that are designed to complement each
other and promote learning and application-learned behavior ( Singh, 2003). In other words
blended learning is defined as a method of educating-at-a-distance that utilizes technology
(high-tech, such as television and the Internet or low-tech, such as voice mail or conference
calls) combined with traditional (or, stand-up) education or training (Smith, 2001).
The aim of using blended learning approaches is to find an harmonious balance between
online access to knowledge and face-to-face human interaction. The balance between online
and face-to-face components will vary for individuals. Some blended courses will include
more face-to-face than online strategies. Other courses will tip the balance in favor of online
strategies, using face-to-face contact infrequently. Still others will mix the two forms of
instruction somewhat equally. Some may emphasize asynchronous student-to-student contact
while others will require significant amounts of synchronous interaction The aim in either
case is to find that harmonious balance- the balance of instructional strategies that is tailored
specifically to improve student learning (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003).
Distance education has a strong background in Turkey and is recognized as a method of
learning for all levels of education, except primary education (covering the years 1-5). The
Ministry of National Education is responsible for all distance learning activities from
kindergarten to secondary level. The Higher Education Council is responsible for the distance
learning implementation in universities. There is a growing private sector offering especially
IT courses via the internet. The other courses are related to project and time management,
language teaching and as preparation for the university entrance examination, which is a
regulation to enroll a program at university level in Turkey. On the other hand, distance
learning is being used increasingly as a mechanism for professional development. Some
courses offered by the universities are for the completion toward a BA degree.
Student satisfaction can be defined as the student’s perception pertaining to the college
experience and perceived value of the education received while attending an educational
institution (Astin, 1993 cited in Bollinger, Martindale, 2004). Learner satisfaction is one of
the key factors for the success of the programs. Moreover, participant satisfaction levels along
with their performance and trust are indicators of the formation and leadership of virtual
teams (Bruce, Avolio, and Surinder, 2003) in e-learning environments.
E-leader Krakow, 2008
Leong, Ho and Ganne ( 2002) investigated the satisfaction of 128 students who enrolled in 29
online courses. The statistically significant dimensions were found as interaction, teacher,
difficulty/work load and technology. In another study, Askar, Dönmez, Kizilkaya, Cevik, and
Gültekin (2005) have argued that student satisfaction is a combination of several factors and
proposed a model aggregating these factors into three groups: usability, instructional design,
and implementation.
To summarize, student satisfaction is a combination of several factors and in this study a
model is proposed by aggregation of these factors into six groups: learner –learner interaction,
learner-teacher interaction, online environment, technical support, printed materials, face-to-
face environment. Therefore, the aim of this study is to develop and validate an instrument
related to learner satisfaction with regard to blended learner and to explore whether
satisfaction differs according to gender and age.
Methodology
Study Setting
This study was carried out in a blended-learning environment offered by Ankara University
Distance Education Center (ANKUZEM). ANKUZEM provides different diploma and
certificate programs reaching to 78 provinces in Turkey and 13 different countries with an
approximate number of 1200 students. The center utilizes web-based synchronous and
asynchronous tools with two methods of information delivery, which are online and face-to-
face environment supplemented by books and video. The screenshot of the online
environment was given below.
Sample
The sample for this study included participants studying in a BA completion program for the
Faculty of Theology in a blended learning program. The program is a two-year program with
E-leader Krakow, 2008
a total of 8 courses in the first year and 7 courses in the second year. Total registered numbers
of students to the program is 1338. The data were collected form 360 learners, 235 males and
125 females.
Data Collection Process
An instrument is designed to determine learners’ satisfaction levels and to explore whether
there is a difference in satisfaction levels according to their gender and age. The instrument
included 34 items with six hypothetical factors as well as a section to obtain demographic data
from the participants.
Results
Among the learners in the research group 35 % (125 people) are female, and 65 % (235) are
male. The most populated group is 26-35 age groups with 153 respondents (42, 5 %). Then
come under 25 (37, 5 %) and 36-45 age group (20 %).
A confirmatory analysis was performed. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a statistical
technique used to verify the factor structure of a set of observed variables. CFA allows the
researcher to test the hypothesis that a relationship between observed variables and their
underlying latent constructs exists ( Suhr, 2006). The learner satisfaction on blended learning
instrument (SBLI) hypothesized six dimension-interaction (learner-learner and learner-teacher
), online environment, technical support, printed materials and face to face environment which
involve examinations. The goodness of fit indices ( e.g. RMSEA= 0.066) showed that the
model is good and the instrument could be used for the adult population.
E-leader Krakow, 2008
E-leader Krakow, 2008
The reliability analysis results for each factor were provided in tables below.
Table 1:
Factor 1: Learner-Learner Interaction ( LLI)
Item #
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
s1
22,32
80,318
,861
,938
s2
22,26
79,941
,875
,937
s3
22,84
81,591
,775
,949
s4
22,38
80,197
,875
,937
s5
22,23
79,734
,876
,936
s6
22,38
81,885
,809
,944
Cronbach’s Alpha 0,95.
Table 2:
Factor 2: Learner-Teacher Interaction ( LTI)
Item #
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
s7
18,29
57,854
,869
,957
s8
18,24
56,297
,906
,951
s9
18,22
56,413
,937
,946
s10
18,24
57,908
,897
,952
s11
18,36
58,224
,854
,959
Cronbach's Alpha 0,96.
Table 3:
Factor 3: Online Environment
Item #
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
s12
30,41
86,471
,620
,918
s13
30,29
83,868
,768
,901
s14
29,69
85,447
,745
,903
s15
29,81
84,005
,760
,902
s17
29,94
84,930
,783
,899
s18
30,32
85,956
,726
,905
Cronbach's Alpha 0, 90.
Table 4:
Factor 4: Technical Support ( TS)
Item #
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
s21
9,56
13,467
,851
,911
s22
9,47
13,721
,887
,882
s23
9,37
14,160
,847
,913
Cronbach's Alpha 0,93.
E-leader Krakow, 2008
Table 5:
Factor 5: Printed Materials ( PM)
Item #
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
s25
36,70
93,067
,733
,886
s26
36,57
93,627
,722
,887
s27
36,50
94,841
,711
,888
s28
36,20
93,382
,786
,881
s29
36,30
95,426
,701
,889
s30
35,97
97,671
,699
,889
s31
36,55
96,092
,577
,901
s32
36,18
98,969
,616
,896
Cronbach's Alpha 0,90
Table 6:
Factor 6: Face to Face Environment ( FFE)
Item #
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
s33
27,40
58,140
,630
,888
s34
26,88
62,087
,587
,894
s35
27,02
59,158
,657
,884
s36
27,72
49,945
,841
,854
s37
27,77
50,700
,815
,859
s38
27,91
50,512
,778
,866
Cronbach's Alpha 0, 89
The t-test and ANOVA were utilized in order to determine the differences according to
gender and age. No statistically significant differences were found between females and males
with respect to satisfaction on blended learning (t= 0
,
487 p>0.05); however female scores
were statistically higher than the males for the face to face environment ( t= 2,265 p= 0,024).
No statistically significant differences were found between ages with respect to satisfaction
and the factors ( F= ,049 p>0.05) .
Conclusion
This paper aims to develop an instrument about the satisfaction on blended learning. The
confirmatory factors analysis confirmed that there were six factors related to satisfaction. This
finding supports the idea that learner satisfaction on online courses depends on several
factors. Since blended learning combines traditional and online environments, the instrument
reflects all the aspects of it.
In addition, it is worth mentioning that personalization of e-learning environment opens a new
venue for researchers to explore individual differences regarding satisfaction and e-leadership.
However assessing individual differences are not quite easy and the existing scales were
developed for traditional teaching-learning environments. Therefore, future research is needed
for identifying learning styles and strategies on Web environments.
E-leader Krakow, 2008
References
Askar, P., Dönmez, O., Kızılkaya, G., Çevik, V.& Gültekin, K., (2005). The dimensions of
student satisfaction on on-line learning programs. Encyclopedia of Distance Learning Vol
4.(editors: Howard, C et. al) Idea-Group Reference: USA. p:585-590.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bollinger, D.U., Martindale, T. (2004). Key Factors for Determining Student
Satisfaction in Online Courses. International Journal of E-Learning.
Bruce, J., Avolio, and Surinder, S. K. (2003). Adding the "E" to E-Leadership:: How it May
Impact Your Leadership, Organizational Dynamics, 31,(4), pp. 325-338.
Leong, P., Ho,C.P.,& Ganne, B.S., (2002). An empirical investigation of student satisfaction
with web-based courses. eLearn. AACE, Montreal, Canada.
Osguthorpe, R. T. and Graham, C. R., 2003. Blended learning environments: Definitions and
directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp 227-233.
Singh, H. ( 2003) Building Effective Blended Learning Programs. November - December
2003 Issue of Educational Technology, Volume 43, Number 6, Pages 51-54.
Smith, J. M., (2001). Blended learning. http://www.gwsae.org/Executiveupdate/2001/March/
blended.htm, accessed 02 May 2003.
Suhr, D.D. ( 2006). Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis. SUGI 31 Proceedings.