research paper introduction about modular learning

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 06 February 2017

Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes

• Mugenyi Justice Kintu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4500-1168 1 , 2 ,
• Chang Zhu 2 &
• Edmond Kagambe 1  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  14 , Article number:  7 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

769k Accesses

233 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

This paper investigates the effectiveness of a blended learning environment through analyzing the relationship between student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It is aimed at determining the significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness taking student characteristics/background and design features as independent variables and learning outcomes as dependent variables. A survey was administered to 238 respondents to gather data on student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. The final semester evaluation results were used as a measure for performance as an outcome. We applied the online self regulatory learning questionnaire for data on learner self regulation, the intrinsic motivation inventory for data on intrinsic motivation and other self-developed instruments for measuring the other constructs. Multiple regression analysis results showed that blended learning design features (technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support) and student characteristics (attitudes and self-regulation) predicted student satisfaction as an outcome. The results indicate that some of the student characteristics/backgrounds and design features are significant predictors for student learning outcomes in blended learning.

Introduction

The teaching and learning environment is embracing a number of innovations and some of these involve the use of technology through blended learning. This innovative pedagogical approach has been embraced rapidly though it goes through a process. The introduction of blended learning (combination of face-to-face and online teaching and learning) initiatives is part of these innovations but its uptake, especially in the developing world faces challenges for it to be an effective innovation in teaching and learning. Blended learning effectiveness has quite a number of underlying factors that pose challenges. One big challenge is about how users can successfully use the technology and ensuring participants’ commitment given the individual learner characteristics and encounters with technology (Hofmann, 2014 ). Hofmann adds that users getting into difficulties with technology may result into abandoning the learning and eventual failure of technological applications. In a report by Oxford Group ( 2013 ), some learners (16%) had negative attitudes to blended learning while 26% were concerned that learners would not complete study in blended learning. Learners are important partners in any learning process and therefore, their backgrounds and characteristics affect their ability to effectively carry on with learning and being in blended learning, the design tools to be used may impinge on the effectiveness in their learning.

This study tackles blended learning effectiveness which has been investigated in previous studies considering grades, course completion, retention and graduation rates but no studies regarding effectiveness in view of learner characteristics/background, design features and outcomes have been done in the Ugandan university context. No studies have also been done on how the characteristics of learners and design features are predictors of outcomes in the context of a planning evaluation research (Guskey, 2000 ) to establish the effectiveness of blended learning. Guskey ( 2000 ) noted that planning evaluation fits in well since it occurs before the implementation of any innovation as well as allowing planners to determine the needs, considering participant characteristics, analyzing contextual matters and gathering baseline information. This study is done in the context of a plan to undertake innovative pedagogy involving use of a learning management system (moodle) for the first time in teaching and learning in a Ugandan university. The learner characteristics/backgrounds being investigated for blended learning effectiveness include self-regulation, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, attitude to blended learning, gender and age. We investigate the blended learning design features of learner interactions, face-to-face support, learning management system tools and technology quality while the outcomes considered include satisfaction, performance, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction. Establishing the significant predictors of outcomes in blended learning will help to inform planners of such learning environments in order to put in place necessary groundwork preparations for designing blended learning as an innovative pedagogical approach.

Kenney and Newcombe ( 2011 ) did their comparison to establish effectiveness in view of grades and found that blended learning had higher average score than the non-blended learning environment. Garrison and Kanuka ( 2004 ) examined the transformative potential of blended learning and reported an increase in course completion rates, improved retention and increased student satisfaction. Comparisons between blended learning environments have been done to establish the disparity between academic achievement, grade dispersions and gender performance differences and no significant differences were found between the groups (Demirkol & Kazu, 2014 ).

However, blended learning effectiveness may be dependent on many other factors and among them student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes. Research shows that the failure of learners to continue their online education in some cases has been due to family support or increased workload leading to learner dropout (Park & Choi, 2009 ) as well as little time for study. Additionally, it is dependent on learner interactions with instructors since failure to continue with online learning is attributed to this. In Greer, Hudson & Paugh’s study as cited in Park and Choi ( 2009 ), family and peer support for learners is important for success in online and face-to-face learning. Support is needed for learners from all areas in web-based courses and this may be from family, friends, co-workers as well as peers in class. Greer, Hudson and Paugh further noted that peer encouragement assisted new learners in computer use and applications. The authors also show that learners need time budgeting, appropriate technology tools and support from friends and family in web-based courses. Peer support is required by learners who have no or little knowledge of technology, especially computers, to help them overcome fears. Park and Choi, ( 2009 ) showed that organizational support significantly predicts learners’ stay and success in online courses because employers at times are willing to reduce learners’ workload during study as well as supervisors showing that they are interested in job-related learning for employees to advance and improve their skills.

The study by Kintu and Zhu ( 2016 ) investigated the possibility of blended learning in a Ugandan University and examined whether student characteristics (such as self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning, computer competence) and student background (such as family support, social support and management of workload) were significant factors in learner outcomes (such as motivation, satisfaction, knowledge construction and performance). The characteristics and background factors were studied along with blended learning design features such as technology quality, learner interactions, and Moodle with its tools and resources. The findings from that study indicated that learner attitudes towards blended learning were significant factors to learner satisfaction and motivation while workload management was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction. Among the blended learning design features, only learner interaction was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction.

The focus of the present study is on examining the effectiveness of blended learning taking into consideration learner characteristics/background, blended learning design elements and learning outcomes and how the former are significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

Studies like that of Morris and Lim ( 2009 ) have investigated learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes in blended learning. They however do not deal with such variables in the contexts of blended learning design as an aspect of innovative pedagogy involving the use of technology in education. Apart from the learner variables such as gender, age, experience, study time as tackled before, this study considers social and background aspects of the learners such as family and social support, self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning and management of workload to find out their relationship to blended learning effectiveness. Identifying the various types of learner variables with regard to their relationship to blended learning effectiveness is important in this study as we embark on innovative pedagogy with technology in teaching and learning.

Literature review

This review presents research about blended learning effectiveness from the perspective of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It also gives the factors that are considered to be significant for blended learning effectiveness. The selected elements are as a result of the researcher’s experiences at a Ugandan university where student learning faces challenges with regard to learner characteristics and blended learning features in adopting the use of technology in teaching and learning. We have made use of Loukis, Georgiou, and Pazalo ( 2007 ) value flow model for evaluating an e-learning and blended learning service specifically considering the effectiveness evaluation layer. This evaluates the extent of an e-learning system usage and the educational effectiveness. In addition, studies by Leidner, Jarvenpaa, Dillon and Gunawardena as cited in Selim ( 2007 ) have noted three main factors that affect e-learning and blended learning effectiveness as instructor characteristics, technology and student characteristics. Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino ( 2001 ) showed the need for examining learner characteristics for effective instructional technology use and showed that user characteristics do impact on behavioral intention to use technology. Research has dealt with learner characteristics that contribute to learner performance outcomes. They have dealt with emotional intelligence, resilience, personality type and success in an online learning context (Berenson, Boyles, & Weaver, 2008 ). Dealing with the characteristics identified in this study will give another dimension, especially for blended learning in learning environment designs and add to specific debate on learning using technology. Lin and Vassar, ( 2009 ) indicated that learner success is dependent on ability to cope with technical difficulty as well as technical skills in computer operations and internet navigation. This justifies our approach in dealing with the design features of blended learning in this study.

Learner characteristics/background and blended learning effectiveness

Studies indicate that student characteristics such as gender play significant roles in academic achievement (Oxford Group, 2013 ), but no study examines performance of male and female as an important factor in blended learning effectiveness. It has again been noted that the success of e- and blended learning is highly dependent on experience in internet and computer applications (Picciano & Seaman, 2007 ). Rigorous discovery of such competences can finally lead to a confirmation of high possibilities of establishing blended learning. Research agrees that the success of e-learning and blended learning can largely depend on students as well as teachers gaining confidence and capability to participate in blended learning (Hadad, 2007 ). Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ) note in their research that 75% of students and 72% of teachers were lacking in skills to utilize ICT based learning components due to insufficient skills and experience in computer and internet applications and this may lead to failure in e-learning and blended learning. It is therefore pertinent that since the use of blended learning applies high usage of computers, computer competence is necessary (Abubakar & Adetimirin, 2015 ) to avoid failure in applying technology in education for learning effectiveness. Rovai, ( 2003 ) noted that learners’ computer literacy and time management are crucial in distance learning contexts and concluded that such factors are meaningful in online classes. This is supported by Selim ( 2007 ) that learners need to posses time management skills and computer skills necessary for effectiveness in e- learning and blended learning. Self-regulatory skills of time management lead to better performance and learners’ ability to structure the physical learning environment leads to efficiency in e-learning and blended learning environments. Learners need to seek helpful assistance from peers and teachers through chats, email and face-to-face meetings for effectiveness (Lynch & Dembo, 2004 ). Factors such as learners’ hours of employment and family responsibilities are known to impede learners’ process of learning, blended learning inclusive (Cohen, Stage, Hammack, & Marcus, 2012 ). It was also noted that a common factor in failure and learner drop-out is the time conflict which is compounded by issues of family , employment status as well as management support (Packham, Jones, Miller, & Thomas, 2004 ). A study by Thompson ( 2004 ) shows that work, family, insufficient time and study load made learners withdraw from online courses.

Learner attitudes to blended learning can result in its effectiveness and these shape behavioral intentions which usually lead to persistence in a learning environment, blended inclusive. Selim, ( 2007 ) noted that the learners’ attitude towards e-learning and blended learning are success factors for these learning environments. Learner performance by age and gender in e-learning and blended learning has been found to indicate no significant differences between male and female learners and different age groups (i.e. young, middle-aged and old above 45 years) (Coldwell, Craig, Paterson, & Mustard, 2008 ). This implies that the potential for blended learning to be effective exists and is unhampered by gender or age differences.

Blended learning design features

The design features under study here include interactions, technology with its quality, face-to-face support and learning management system tools and resources.

Research shows that absence of learner interaction causes failure and eventual drop-out in online courses (Willging & Johnson, 2009 ) and the lack of learner connectedness was noted as an internal factor leading to learner drop-out in online courses (Zielinski, 2000 ). It was also noted that learners may not continue in e- and blended learning if they are unable to make friends thereby being disconnected and developing feelings of isolation during their blended learning experiences (Willging & Johnson, 2009). Learners’ Interactions with teachers and peers can make blended learning effective as its absence makes learners withdraw (Astleitner, 2000 ). Loukis, Georgious and Pazalo (2007) noted that learners’ measuring of a system’s quality, reliability and ease of use leads to learning efficiency and can be so in blended learning. Learner success in blended learning may substantially be affected by system functionality (Pituch & Lee, 2006 ) and may lead to failure of such learning initiatives (Shrain, 2012 ). It is therefore important to examine technology quality for ensuring learning effectiveness in blended learning. Tselios, Daskalakis, and Papadopoulou ( 2011 ) investigated learner perceptions after a learning management system use and found out that the actual system use determines the usefulness among users. It is again noted that a system with poor response time cannot be taken to be useful for e-learning and blended learning especially in cases of limited bandwidth (Anderson, 2004 ). In this study, we investigate the use of Moodle and its tools as a function of potential effectiveness of blended learning.

The quality of learning management system content for learners can be a predictor of good performance in e-and blended learning environments and can lead to learner satisfaction. On the whole, poor quality technology yields no satisfaction by users and therefore the quality of technology significantly affects satisfaction (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001 ). Continued navigation through a learning management system increases use and is an indicator of success in blended learning (Delone & McLean, 2003 ). The efficient use of learning management system and its tools improves learning outcomes in e-learning and blended learning environments.

It is noted that learner satisfaction with a learning management system can be an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness. Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) noted that learners showed an appreciation to Moodle’s contribution in their learning. They showed positivity with it as it improved their understanding of course material (Ahmad & Al-Khanjari, 2011 ). The study by Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) used descriptive statistics to indicate improved learning by use of uploaded syllabus and session plans on Moodle. Improved learning is also noted through sharing study material, submitting assignments and using the calendar. Learners in the study found Moodle to be an effective educational tool.

In blended learning set ups, face-to-face experiences form part of the blend and learner positive attitudes to such sessions could mean blended learning effectiveness. A study by Marriot, Marriot, and Selwyn ( 2004 ) showed learners expressing their preference for face-to-face due to its facilitation of social interaction and communication skills acquired from classroom environment. Their preference for the online session was only in as far as it complemented the traditional face-to-face learning. Learners in a study by Osgerby ( 2013 ) had positive perceptions of blended learning but preferred face-to-face with its step-by-stem instruction. Beard, Harper and Riley ( 2004 ) shows that some learners are successful while in a personal interaction with teachers and peers thus prefer face-to-face in the blend. Beard however dealt with a comparison between online and on-campus learning while our study combines both, singling out the face-to-face part of the blend. The advantage found by Beard is all the same relevant here because learners in blended learning express attitude to both online and face-to-face for an effective blend. Researchers indicate that teacher presence in face-to-face sessions lessens psychological distance between them and the learners and leads to greater learning. This is because there are verbal aspects like giving praise, soliciting for viewpoints, humor, etc and non-verbal expressions like eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, etc which make teachers to be closer to learners psychologically (Kelley & Gorham, 2009 ).

Learner outcomes

The outcomes under scrutiny in this study include performance, motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction. Motivation is seen here as an outcome because, much as cognitive factors such as course grades are used in measuring learning outcomes, affective factors like intrinsic motivation may also be used to indicate outcomes of learning (Kuo, Walker, Belland, & Schroder, 2013 ). Research shows that high motivation among online learners leads to persistence in their courses (Menager-Beeley, 2004 ). Sankaran and Bui ( 2001 ) indicated that less motivated learners performed poorly in knowledge tests while those with high learning motivation demonstrate high performance in academics (Green, Nelson, Martin, & Marsh, 2006 ). Lim and Kim, ( 2003 ) indicated that learner interest as a motivation factor promotes learner involvement in learning and this could lead to learning effectiveness in blended learning.

Learner satisfaction was noted as a strong factor for effectiveness of blended and online courses (Wilging & Johnson, 2009) and dissatisfaction may result from learners’ incompetence in the use of the learning management system as an effective learning tool since, as Islam ( 2014 ) puts it, users may be dissatisfied with an information system due to ease of use. A lack of prompt feedback for learners from course instructors was found to cause dissatisfaction in an online graduate course. In addition, dissatisfaction resulted from technical difficulties as well as ambiguous course instruction Hara and Kling ( 2001 ). These factors, once addressed, can lead to learner satisfaction in e-learning and blended learning and eventual effectiveness. A study by Blocker and Tucker ( 2001 ) also showed that learners had difficulties with technology and inadequate group participation by peers leading to dissatisfaction within these design features. Student-teacher interactions are known to bring satisfaction within online courses. Study results by Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that student-teacher interaction strongly related with student satisfaction and high learner-learner interaction resulted in higher levels of course satisfaction. Descriptive results by Naaj, Nachouki, and Ankit ( 2012 ) showed that learners were satisfied with technology which was a video-conferencing component of blended learning with a mean of 3.7. The same study indicated student satisfaction with instructors at a mean of 3.8. Askar and Altun, ( 2008 ) found that learners were satisfied with face-to-face sessions of the blend with t-tests and ANOVA results indicating female scores as higher than for males in the satisfaction with face-to-face environment of the blended learning.

Studies comparing blended learning with traditional face-to-face have indicated that learners perform equally well in blended learning and their performance is unaffected by the delivery method (Kwak, Menezes, & Sherwood, 2013 ). In another study, learning experience and performance are known to improve when traditional course delivery is integrated with online learning (Stacey & Gerbic, 2007 ). Such improvement as noted may be an indicator of blended learning effectiveness. Our study however, delves into improved performance but seeks to establish the potential of blended learning effectiveness by considering grades obtained in a blended learning experiment. Score 50 and above is considered a pass in this study’s setting and learners scoring this and above will be considered to have passed. This will make our conclusions about the potential of blended learning effectiveness.

Regarding knowledge construction, it has been noted that effective learning occurs where learners are actively involved (Nurmela, Palonen, Lehtinen & Hakkarainen, 2003 , cited in Zhu, 2012 ) and this may be an indicator of learning environment effectiveness. Effective blended learning would require that learners are able to initiate, discover and accomplish the processes of knowledge construction as antecedents of blended learning effectiveness. A study by Rahman, Yasin and Jusoff ( 2011 ) indicated that learners were able to use some steps to construct meaning through an online discussion process through assignments given. In the process of giving and receiving among themselves, the authors noted that learners learned by writing what they understood. From our perspective, this can be considered to be accomplishment in the knowledge construction process. Their study further shows that learners construct meaning individually from assignments and this stage is referred to as pre-construction which for our study, is an aspect of discovery in the knowledge construction process.

Predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Researchers have dealt with success factors for online learning or those for traditional face-to-face learning but little is known about factors that predict blended learning effectiveness in view of learner characteristics and blended learning design features. This part of our study seeks to establish the learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features that predict blended learning effectiveness with regard to satisfaction, outcomes, motivation and knowledge construction. Song, Singleton, Hill, and Koh ( 2004 ) examined online learning effectiveness factors and found out that time management (a self-regulatory factor) was crucial for successful online learning. Eom, Wen, and Ashill ( 2006 ) using a survey found out that interaction, among other factors, was significant for learner satisfaction. Technical problems with regard to instructional design were a challenge to online learners thus not indicating effectiveness (Song et al., 2004 ), though the authors also indicated that descriptive statistics to a tune of 75% and time management (62%) impact on success of online learning. Arbaugh ( 2000 ) and Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that high levels of learner-instructor interaction are associated with high levels of user satisfaction and learning outcomes. A study by Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) indicated that technology and learner interactions, among other factors, influenced learner satisfaction in blended learning.

Objective and research questions of the current study

The objective of the current study is to investigate the effectiveness of blended learning in view of student satisfaction, knowledge construction, performance and intrinsic motivation and how they are related to student characteristics and blended learning design features in a blended learning environment.

Research questions

What are the student characteristics and blended learning design features for an effective blended learning environment?

Which factors (among the learner characteristics and blended learning design features) predict student satisfaction, learning outcomes, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction?

Conceptual model of the present study

The reviewed literature clearly shows learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features play a part in blended learning effectiveness and some of them are significant predictors of effectiveness. The conceptual model for our study is depicted as follows (Fig.  1 ):

Conceptual model of the current study

Research design

This research applies a quantitative design where descriptive statistics are used for the student characteristics and design features data, t-tests for the age and gender variables to determine if they are significant in blended learning effectiveness and regression for predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

This study is based on an experiment in which learners participated during their study using face-to-face sessions and an on-line session of a blended learning design. A learning management system (Moodle) was used and learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features were measured in relation to learning effectiveness. It is therefore a planning evaluation research design as noted by Guskey ( 2000 ) since the outcomes are aimed at blended learning implementation at MMU. The plan under which the various variables were tested involved face-to-face study at the beginning of a 17 week semester which was followed by online teaching and learning in the second half of the semester. The last part of the semester was for another face-to-face to review work done during the online sessions and final semester examinations. A questionnaire with items on student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes was distributed among students from three schools and one directorate of postgraduate studies.

Participants

Cluster sampling was used to select a total of 238 learners to participate in this study. Out of the whole university population of students, three schools and one directorate were used. From these, one course unit was selected from each school and all the learners following the course unit were surveyed. In the school of Education ( n  = 70) and Business and Management Studies ( n  = 133), sophomore students were involved due to the fact that they have been introduced to ICT basics during their first year of study. Students of the third year were used from the department of technology in the School of Applied Sciences and Technology ( n  = 18) since most of the year two courses had a lot of practical aspects that could not be used for the online learning part. From the Postgraduate Directorate ( n  = 17), first and second year students were selected because learners attend a face-to-face session before they are given paper modules to study away from campus.

The study population comprised of 139 male students representing 58.4% and 99 females representing 41.6% with an average age of 24 years.

Instruments

The end of semester results were used to measure learner performance. The online self-regulated learning questionnaire (Barnard, Lan, To, Paton, & Lai, 2009 ) and the intrinsic motivation inventory (Deci & Ryan, 1982 ) were applied to measure the constructs on self regulation in the student characteristics and motivation in the learning outcome constructs. Other self-developed instruments were used for the other remaining variables of attitudes, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, satisfaction, knowledge construction, technology quality, interactions, learning management system tools and resources and face-to-face support.

Instrument reliability

Cronbach’s alpha was used to test reliability and the table below gives the results. All the scales and sub-scales had acceptable internal consistency reliabilities as shown in Table  1 below:

Data analysis

First, descriptive statistics was conducted. Shapiro-Wilk test was done to test normality of the data for it to qualify for parametric tests. The test results for normality of our data before the t- test resulted into significant levels (Male = .003, female = .000) thereby violating the normality assumption. We therefore used the skewness and curtosis results which were between −1.0 and +1.0 and assumed distribution to be sufficiently normal to qualify the data for a parametric test, (Pallant, 2010 ). An independent samples t -test was done to find out the differences in male and female performance to explain the gender characteristics in blended learning effectiveness. A one-way ANOVA between subjects was conducted to establish the differences in performance between age groups. Finally, multiple regression analysis was done between student variables and design elements with learning outcomes to determine the significant predictors for blended learning effectiveness.

Student characteristics, blended learning design features and learning outcomes ( RQ1 )

A t- test was carried out to establish the performance of male and female learners in the blended learning set up. This was aimed at finding out if male and female learners do perform equally well in blended learning given their different roles and responsibilities in society. It was found that male learners performed slightly better ( M  = 62.5) than their female counterparts ( M  = 61.1). An independent t -test revealed that the difference between the performances was not statistically significant ( t  = 1.569, df = 228, p  = 0.05, one tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means is small with effect size ( d  = 0.18). A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted on the performance of different age groups to establish the performance of learners of young and middle aged age groups (20–30, young & and 31–39, middle aged). This revealed a significant difference in performance (F(1,236 = 8.498, p < . 001).

Average percentages of the items making up the self regulated learning scale are used to report the findings about all the sub-scales in the learner characteristics/background scale. Results show that learner self-regulation was good enough at 72.3% in all the sub-scales of goal setting, environment structuring, task strategies, time management, help-seeking and self-evaluation among learners. The least in the scoring was task strategies at 67.7% and the highest was learner environment structuring at 76.3%. Learner attitude towards blended learning environment is at 76% in the sub-scales of learner autonomy, quality of instructional materials, course structure, course interface and interactions. The least scored here is attitude to course structure at 66% and their attitudes were high on learner autonomy and course interface both at 82%. Results on the learners’ computer competences are summarized in percentages in the table below (Table  2 ):

It can be seen that learners are skilled in word processing at 91%, email at 63.5%, spreadsheets at 68%, web browsers at 70.2% and html tools at 45.4%. They are therefore good enough in word processing and web browsing. Their computer confidence levels are reported at 75.3% and specifically feel very confident when it comes to working with a computer (85.7%). Levels of family and social support for learners during blended learning experiences are at 60.5 and 75% respectively. There is however a low score on learners being assisted by family members in situations of computer setbacks (33.2%) as 53.4% of the learners reported no assistance in this regard. A higher percentage (85.3%) is reported on learners getting support from family regarding provision of essentials for learning such as tuition. A big percentage of learners spend two hours on study while at home (35.3%) followed by one hour (28.2%) while only 9.7% spend more than three hours on study at home. Peers showed great care during the blended learning experience (81%) and their experiences were appreciated by the society (66%). Workload management by learners vis-à-vis studying is good at 60%. Learners reported that their workmates stand in for them at workplaces to enable them do their study in blended learning while 61% are encouraged by their bosses to go and improve their skills through further education and training. On the time spent on other activities not related to study, majority of the learners spend three hours (35%) while 19% spend 6 hours. Sixty percent of the learners have to answer to someone when they are not attending to other activities outside study compared to the 39.9% who do not and can therefore do study or those other activities.

The usability of the online system, tools and resources was below average as shown in the table below in percentages (Table  3 ):

However, learners became skilled at navigating around the learning management system (79%) and it was easy for them to locate course content, tools and resources needed such as course works, news, discussions and journal materials. They effectively used the communication tools (60%) and to work with peers by making posts (57%). They reported that online resources were well organized, user friendly and easy to access (71%) as well as well structured in a clear and understandable manner (72%). They therefore recommended the use of online resources for other course units in future (78%) because they were satisfied with them (64.3%). On the whole, the online resources were fine for the learners (67.2%) and useful as a learning resource (80%). The learners’ perceived usefulness/satisfaction with online system, tools, and resources was at 81% as the LMS tools helped them to communicate, work with peers and reflect on their learning (74%). They reported that using moodle helped them to learn new concepts, information and gaining skills (85.3%) as well as sharing what they knew or learned (76.4%). They enjoyed the course units (78%) and improved their skills with technology (89%).

Learner interactions were seen from three angles of cognitivism, collaborative learning and student-teacher interactions. Collaborative learning was average at 50% with low percentages in learners posting challenges to colleagues’ ideas online (34%) and posting ideas for colleagues to read online (37%). They however met oftentimes online (60%) and organized how they would work together in study during the face-to-face meetings (69%). The common form of communication medium frequently used by learners during the blended learning experience was by phone (34.5%) followed by whatsapp (21.8%), face book (21%), discussion board (11.8%) and email (10.9%). At the cognitive level, learners interacted with content at 72% by reading the posted content (81%), exchanging knowledge via the LMS (58.4%), participating in discussions on the forum (62%) and got course objectives and structure introduced during the face-to-face sessions (86%). Student-teacher interaction was reported at 71% through instructors individually working with them online (57.2%) and being well guided towards learning goals (81%). They did receive suggestions from instructors about resources to use in their learning (75.3%) and instructors provided learning input for them to come up with their own answers (71%).

The technology quality during the blended learning intervention was rated at 69% with availability of 72%, quality of the resources was at 68% with learners reporting that discussion boards gave right content necessary for study (71%) and the email exchanges containing relevant and much needed information (63.4%) as well as chats comprising of essential information to aid the learning (69%). Internet reliability was rated at 66% with a speed considered averagely good to facilitate online activities (63%). They however reported that there was intermittent breakdown during online study (67%) though they could complete their internet program during connection (63.4%). Learners eventually found it easy to download necessary materials for study in their blended learning experiences (71%).

Learner extent of use of the learning management system features was as shown in the table below in percentage (Table  4 ):

From the table, very rarely used features include the blog and wiki while very often used ones include the email, forum, chat and calendar.

The effectiveness of the LMS was rated at 79% by learners reporting that they found it useful (89%) and using it makes their learning activities much easier (75.2%). Moodle has helped learners to accomplish their learning tasks more quickly (74%) and that as a LMS, it is effective in teaching and learning (88%) with overall satisfaction levels at 68%. However, learners note challenges in the use of the LMS regarding its performance as having been problematic to them (57%) and only 8% of the learners reported navigation while 16% reported access as challenges.

Learner attitudes towards Face-to-face support were reported at 88% showing that the sessions were enjoyable experiences (89%) with high quality class discussions (86%) and therefore recommended that the sessions should continue in blended learning (89%). The frequency of the face-to-face sessions is shown in the table below as preferred by learners (Table  5 ).

Learners preferred face-to-face sessions after every month in the semester (33.6%) and at the beginning of the blended learning session only (27.7%).

Learners reported high intrinsic motivation levels with interest and enjoyment of tasks at 83.7%, perceived competence at 70.2%, effort/importance sub-scale at 80%, pressure/tension reported at 54%. The pressure percentage of 54% arises from learners feeling nervous (39.2%) and a lot of anxiety (53%) while 44% felt a lot of pressure during the blended learning experiences. Learners however reported the value/usefulness of blended learning at 91% with majority believing that studying online and face-to-face had value for them (93.3%) and were therefore willing to take part in blended learning (91.2%). They showed that it is beneficial for them (94%) and that it was an important way of studying (84.3%).

Learner satisfaction was reported at 81% especially with instructors (85%) high percentage reported on encouraging learner participation during the course of study 93%, course content (83%) with the highest being satisfaction with the good relationship between the objectives of the course units and the content (90%), technology (71%) with a high percentage on the fact that the platform was adequate for the online part of the learning (76%), interactions (75%) with participation in class at 79%, and face-to-face sessions (91%) with learner satisfaction high on face-to-face sessions being good enough for interaction and giving an overview of the courses when objectives were introduced at 92%.

Learners’ knowledge construction was reported at 78% with initiation and discovery scales scoring 84% with 88% specifically for discovering the learning points in the course units. The accomplishment scale in knowledge construction scored 71% and specifically the fact that learners were able to work together with group members to accomplish learning tasks throughout the study of the course units (79%). Learners developed reports from activities (67%), submitted solutions to discussion questions (68%) and did critique peer arguments (69%). Generally, learners performed well in blended learning in the final examination with an average pass of 62% and standard deviation of 7.5.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness ( RQ 2)

A standard multiple regression analysis was done taking learner characteristics/background and design features as predictor variables and learning outcomes as criterion variables. The data was first tested to check if it met the linear regression test assumptions and results showed the correlations between the independent variables and each of the dependent variables (highest 0.62 and lowest 0.22) as not being too high, which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem in our model. From the coefficients table, the VIF values ranged from 1.0 to 2.4, well below the cut off value of 10 and indicating no possibility of multicollinearity. The normal probability plot was seen to lie as a reasonably straight diagonal from bottom left to top right indicating normality of our data. Linearity was found suitable from the scatter plot of the standardized residuals and was rectangular in distribution. Outliers were no cause for concern in our data since we had only 1% of all cases falling outside 3.0 thus proving the data as a normally distributed sample. Our R -square values was at 0.525 meaning that the independent variables explained about 53% of the variance in overall satisfaction, motivation and knowledge construction of the learners. All the models explaining the three dependent variables of learner satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction were significant at the 0.000 probability level (Table  6 ).

From the table above, design features (technology quality and online tools and resources), and learner characteristics (attitudes to blended learning, self-regulation) were significant predictors of learner satisfaction in blended learning. This means that good technology with the features involved and the learner positive attitudes with capacity to do blended learning with self drive led to their satisfaction. The design features (technology quality, interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation and social support), were found to be significant predictors of learner knowledge construction. This implies that learners’ capacity to go on their work by themselves supported by peers and high levels of interaction using the quality technology led them to construct their own ideas in blended learning. Design features (technology quality, online tools and resources as well as learner interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation), significantly predicted the learners’ intrinsic motivation in blended learning suggesting that good technology, tools and high interaction levels with independence in learning led to learners being highly motivated. Finally, none of the independent variables considered under this study were predictors of learning outcomes (grade).

In this study we have investigated learning outcomes as dependent variables to establish if particular learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features are related to the outcomes for blended learning effectiveness and if they predict learning outcomes in blended learning. We took students from three schools out of five and one directorate of post-graduate studies at a Ugandan University. The study suggests that the characteristics and design features examined are good drivers towards an effective blended learning environment though a few of them predicted learning outcomes in blended learning.

Student characteristics/background, blended learning design features and learning outcomes

The learner characteristics, design features investigated are potentially important for an effective blended learning environment. Performance by gender shows a balance with no statistical differences between male and female. There are statistically significant differences ( p  < .005) in the performance between age groups with means of 62% for age group 20–30 and 67% for age group 31 –39. The indicators of self regulation exist as well as positive attitudes towards blended learning. Learners do well with word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets and web browsers but still lag below average in html tools. They show computer confidence at 75.3%; which gives prospects for an effective blended learning environment in regard to their computer competence and confidence. The levels of family and social support for learners stand at 61 and 75% respectively, indicating potential for blended learning to be effective. The learners’ balance between study and work is a drive factor towards blended learning effectiveness since their management of their workload vis a vis study time is at 60 and 61% of the learners are encouraged to go for study by their bosses. Learner satisfaction with the online system and its tools shows prospect for blended learning effectiveness but there are challenges in regard to locating course content and assignments, submitting their work and staying on a task during online study. Average collaborative, cognitive learning as well as learner-teacher interactions exist as important factors. Technology quality for effective blended learning is a potential for effectiveness though features like the blog and wiki are rarely used by learners. Face-to-face support is satisfactory and it should be conducted every month. There is high intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction as well as good performance in examinations ( M  = 62%, SD = 7.5); which indicates potentiality for blended learning effectiveness.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Among the design features, technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support are predictors of learner satisfaction while learner characteristics of self regulation and attitudes to blended learning are predictors of satisfaction. Technology quality and interactions are the only design features predicting learner knowledge construction, while social support, among the learner backgrounds, is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation as a learner characteristic is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation is the only learner characteristic predicting intrinsic motivation in blended learning while technology quality, online tools and interactions are the design features predicting intrinsic motivation. However, all the independent variables are not significant predictors of learning performance in blended learning.

The high computer competences and confidence is an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness as noted by Hadad ( 2007 ) and this study finds learners confident and competent enough for the effectiveness of blended learning. A lack in computer skills causes failure in e-learning and blended learning as noted by Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ). From our study findings, this is no threat for blended learning our case as noted by our results. Contrary to Cohen et al. ( 2012 ) findings that learners’ family responsibilities and hours of employment can impede their process of learning, it is not the case here since they are drivers to the blended learning process. Time conflict, as compounded by family, employment status and management support (Packham et al., 2004 ) were noted as causes of learner failure and drop out of online courses. Our results show, on the contrary, that these factors are drivers for blended learning effectiveness because learners have a good balance between work and study and are supported by bosses to study. In agreement with Selim ( 2007 ), learner positive attitudes towards e-and blended learning environments are success factors. In line with Coldwell et al. ( 2008 ), no statistically significant differences exist between age groups. We however note that Coldwel, et al dealt with young, middle-aged and old above 45 years whereas we dealt with young and middle aged only.

Learner interactions at all levels are good enough and contrary to Astleitner, ( 2000 ) that their absence makes learners withdraw, they are a drive factor here. In line with Loukis (2007) the LMS quality, reliability and ease of use lead to learning efficiency as technology quality, online tools are predictors of learner satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Face-to-face sessions should continue on a monthly basis as noted here and is in agreement with Marriot et al. ( 2004 ) who noted learner preference for it for facilitating social interaction and communication skills. High learner intrinsic motivation leads to persistence in online courses as noted by Menager-Beeley, ( 2004 ) and is high enough in our study. This implies a possibility of an effectiveness blended learning environment. The causes of learner dissatisfaction noted by Islam ( 2014 ) such as incompetence in the use of the LMS are contrary to our results in our study, while the one noted by Hara and Kling, ( 2001 ) as resulting from technical difficulties and ambiguous course instruction are no threat from our findings. Student-teacher interaction showed a relation with satisfaction according to Swan ( 2001 ) but is not a predictor in our study. Initiating knowledge construction by learners for blended learning effectiveness is exhibited in our findings and agrees with Rahman, Yasin and Jusof ( 2011 ). Our study has not agreed with Eom et al. ( 2006 ) who found learner interactions as predictors of learner satisfaction but agrees with Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) regarding technology as a predictor of learner satisfaction.

Conclusion and recommendations

An effective blended learning environment is necessary in undertaking innovative pedagogical approaches through the use of technology in teaching and learning. An examination of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes as factors for effectiveness can help to inform the design of effective learning environments that involve face-to-face sessions and online aspects. Most of the student characteristics and blended learning design features dealt with in this study are important factors for blended learning effectiveness. None of the independent variables were identified as significant predictors of student performance. These gaps are open for further investigation in order to understand if they can be significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness in a similar or different learning setting.

In planning to design and implement blended learning, we are mindful of the implications raised by this study which is a planning evaluation research for the design and eventual implementation of blended learning. Universities should be mindful of the interplay between the learner characteristics, design features and learning outcomes which are indicators of blended learning effectiveness. From this research, learners manifest high potential to take on blended learning more especially in regard to learner self-regulation exhibited. Blended learning is meant to increase learners’ levels of knowledge construction in order to create analytical skills in them. Learner ability to assess and critically evaluate knowledge sources is hereby established in our findings. This can go a long way in producing skilled learners who can be innovative graduates enough to satisfy employment demands through creativity and innovativeness. Technology being less of a shock to students gives potential for blended learning design. Universities and other institutions of learning should continue to emphasize blended learning approaches through installation of learning management systems along with strong internet to enable effective learning through technology especially in the developing world.

Abubakar, D. & Adetimirin. (2015). Influence of computer literacy on post-graduates’ use of e-resources in Nigerian University Libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice. From http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/ . Retrieved 18 Aug 2015.

Ahmad, N., & Al-Khanjari, Z. (2011). Effect of Moodle on learning: An Oman perception. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC), 1 (4), 746–752.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, T. (2004). Theory and Practice of Online Learning . Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in internet-basedMBAcourses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63 (4), 9–18.

Article   Google Scholar  

Askar, P. & Altun, A. (2008). Learner satisfaction on blended learning. E-Leader Krakow , 2008.

Astleitner, H. (2000) Dropout and distance education. A review of motivational and emotional strategies to reduce dropout in web-based distance education. In Neuwe Medien in Unterricht, Aus-und Weiterbildung Waxmann Munster, New York.

Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. (2009). Measuring self regulation in online and blended learning environments’. Internet and Higher Education, 12 (1), 1–6.

Beard, L. A., Harper, C., & Riley, G. (2004). Online versus on-campus instruction: student attitudes & perceptions. TechTrends, 48 (6), 29–31.

Berenson, R., Boyles, G., & Weaver, A. (2008). Emotional intelligence as a predictor for success in online learning. International Review of Research in open & Distance Learning, 9 (2), 1–16.

Blocker, J. M., & Tucker, G. (2001). Using constructivist principles in designing and integrating online collaborative interactions. In F. Fuller & R. McBride (Eds.), Distance education. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 32–36). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 457 822.

Cohen, K. E., Stage, F. K., Hammack, F. M., & Marcus, A. (2012). Persistence of master’s students in the United States: Developing and testing of a conceptual model . USA: PhD Dissertation, New York University.

Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T., & Mustard, J. (2008). Online students: Relationships between participation, demographics and academic performance. The Electronic Journal of e-learning, 6 (1), 19–30.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1982). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Available from selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2016.

Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and McLean model of information systems success: A Ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9–30.

Demirkol, M., & Kazu, I. Y. (2014). Effect of blended environment model on high school students’ academic achievement. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13 (1), 78–87.

Eom, S., Wen, H., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: an empirical investigation’. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4 (2), 215–235.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (2), 95–105.

Goyal, E., & Tambe, S. (2015). Effectiveness of Moodle-enabled blended learning in private Indian Business School teaching NICHE programs. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5 (2), 14–22.

Green, J., Nelson, G., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. (2006). The causal ordering of self-concept and academic motivation and its effect on academic achievement. International Education Journal, 7 (4), 534–546.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development . Thousands Oaks: Corwin Press.

Hadad, W. (2007). ICT-in-education toolkit reference handbook . InfoDev. from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.301.html . Retrieved 04 Aug 2015.

Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2001). Student distress in web-based distance education. Educause Quarterly. 3 (2001).

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2001). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Hofmann, J. (2014). Solutions to the top 10 challenges of blended learning. Top 10 challenges of blended learning. Available on cedma-europe.org .

Islam, A. K. M. N. (2014). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: A critical incident technique approach. Computers in Human Behaviour, 30 , 249–261.

Kelley, D. H. & Gorham, J. (2009) Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37 (3), 198–207.

Kenney, J., & Newcombe, E. (2011). Adopting a blended learning approach: Challenges, encountered and lessons learned in an action research study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15 (1), 45–57.

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.

Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, L. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14 (1), 16–39.

Kwak, D. W., Menezes, F. M., & Sherwood, C. (2013). Assessing the impact of blended learning on student performance. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–136.

Lim, D. H., & Kim, H. J. (2003). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31 (4), 423–439.

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learner outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 282–293.

Lin, B., & Vassar, J. A. (2009). Determinants for success in online learning communities. International Journal of Web-based Communities, 5 (3), 340–350.

Loukis, E., Georgiou, S. & Pazalo, K. (2007). A value flow model for the evaluation of an e-learning service. ECIS, 2007 Proceedings, paper 175.

Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5 (2), 1–16.

Marriot, N., Marriot, P., & Selwyn. (2004). Accounting undergraduates’ changing use of ICT and their views on using the internet in higher education-A Research note. Accounting Education, 13 (4), 117–130.

Menager-Beeley, R. (2004). Web-based distance learning in a community college: The influence of task values on task choice, retention and commitment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (9-A), 3191.

Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11 , 185–200.

Nurmela, K., Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E. & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Developing tools for analysing CSCL process. In Wasson, B. Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, V. (eds), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp 333–342). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer.

Osgerby, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Accounting Education, 22 (1), 85–99.

Oxford Group, (2013). Blended learning-current use, challenges and best practices. From http://www.kineo.com/m/0/blended-learning-report-202013.pdf . Accessed on 17 Mar 2016.

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., & Thomas, B. (2004). E-learning and retention key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education and Training, 46 (6–7), 335–342.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Mannual (4th ed.). Maidenhead: OUP McGraw-Hill.

Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 207–217.

Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators . New York, USA: Sloan-C.

Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25 (4), 401–426.

Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47 (2), 222–244.

Rahman, S. et al, (2011). Knowledge construction process in online learning. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 8 (2), 488–492.

Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. Computers & Education, 6 (1), 1–16.

Sankaran, S., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on performance: A study in Web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28 (3), 191–198.

Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49 (2), 396–413.

Shraim, K., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2010). An e-learning approach to secondary education in Palestine: opportunities and challenges. Information Technology for Development, 16 (3), 159–173.

Shrain, K. (2012). Moving towards e-learning paradigm: Readiness of higher education instructors in Palestine. International Journal on E-Learning, 11 (4), 441–463.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics’. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (1), 59–70.

Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2007). Teaching for blended learning: research perspectives from on-campus and distance students. Education and Information Technologies, 12 , 165–174.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22 (2), 306–331.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Thompson, E. (2004). Distance education drop-out: What can we do? In R. Pospisil & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Learning Through Teaching (Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, pp. 324–332). Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.

Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 224–235.

Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to drop-out of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13 (3), 115–127.

Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–137.

Zielinski, D. (2000). Can you keep learners online? Training, 37 (3), 64–75.

Download references

Authors’ contribution

MJK conceived the study idea, developed the conceptual framework, collected the data, analyzed it and wrote the article. CZ gave the technical advice concerning the write-up and advised on relevant corrections to be made before final submission. EK did the proof-reading of the article as well as language editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mountains of the Moon University, P.O. Box 837, Fort Portal, Uganda

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Edmond Kagambe

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, 1050, Ixelles, Belgium

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Chang Zhu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mugenyi Justice Kintu .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kintu, M.J., Zhu, C. & Kagambe, E. Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14 , 7 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Download citation

Received : 13 July 2016

Accepted : 23 November 2016

Published : 06 February 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Blended learning effectiveness
• Learner characteristics
• Design features
• Learning outcomes and significant predictors

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Behav Sci (Basel)

Assessing Cognitive Factors of Modular Distance Learning of K-12 Students Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic towards Academic Achievements and Satisfaction

Yung-tsan jou.

1 Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan 320, Taiwan; wt.ude.ucyc@uojty (Y.-T.J.); moc.oohay@enimrahcrolfas (C.S.S.)

Klint Allen Mariñas

2 School of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Mapua University, Manila 1002, Philippines

3 Department of Industrial Engineering, Occidental Mindoro State College, San Jose 5100, Philippines

Charmine Sheena Saflor

Associated data.

Not applicable.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought extraordinary challenges to K-12 students in using modular distance learning. According to Transactional Distance Theory (TDT), which is defined as understanding the effects of distance learning in the cognitive domain, the current study constructs a theoretical framework to measure student satisfaction and Bloom’s Taxonomy Theory (BTT) to measure students’ academic achievements. This study aims to evaluate and identify the possible cognitive capacity influencing K-12 students’ academic achievements and satisfaction with modular distance learning during this new phenomenon. A survey questionnaire was completed through an online form by 252 K-12 students from the different institutions of Occidental Mindoro. Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the researcher analyses the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The model used in this research illustrates cognitive factors associated with adopting modular distance learning based on students’ academic achievements and satisfaction. The study revealed that students’ background, experience, behavior, and instructor interaction positively affected their satisfaction. While the effects of the students’ performance, understanding, and perceived effectiveness were wholly aligned with their academic achievements. The findings of the model with solid support of the integrative association between TDT and BTT theories could guide decision-makers in institutions to implement, evaluate, and utilize modular distance learning in their education systems.

1. Introduction

The 2019 coronavirus is the latest infectious disease to develop rapidly worldwide [ 1 ], affecting economic stability, global health, and education. Most countries have suspended thee-to-face classes in order to curb the spread of the virus and reduce infections [ 2 ]. One of the sectors impacted has been education, resulting in the suspension of face-to-face classes to avoid spreading the virus. The Department of Education (DepEd) has introduced modular distance learning for K-12 students to ensure continuity of learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Malipot (2020), modular learning is one of the most popular sorts of distance learning alternatives to traditional face-to-face learning [ 3 ]. As per DepEd’s Learner Enrolment and Survey Forms, 7.2 million enrollees preferred “modular” remote learning, TV and radio-based practice, and other modalities, while two million enrollees preferred online learning. It is a method of learning that is currently being used based on the preferred distance learning mode of the students and parents through the survey conducted by the Department of Education (DepEd); this learning method is mainly done through the use of printed and digital modules [ 4 ]. It also concerns first-year students in rural areas; the place net is no longer available for online learning. Supporting the findings of Ambayon (2020), modular teaching within the teach-learn method is more practical than traditional educational methods because students learn at their own pace during this modular approach. This educational platform allows K-12 students to interact in self-paced textual matter or digital copy modules. With these COVID-19 outbreaks, some issues concerned students’ academic, and the factors associated with students’ psychological status during the COVID-19 lockdown [ 5 ].

Additionally, this new learning platform, modular distance learning, seems to have impacted students’ ability to discover and challenged their learning skills. Scholars have also paid close attention to learner satisfaction and academic achievement when it involves distance learning studies and have used a spread of theoretical frameworks to assess learner satisfaction and educational outcomes [ 6 , 7 ]. Because this study aimed to boost academic achievement and satisfaction in K-12 students, the researcher thoroughly applied transactional distance theory (TDT) to understand the consequences of distance in relationships in education. The TDT was utilized since it has the capability to establish the psychological and communication factors between the learners and the instructors in distance education that could eventually help researchers in identifying the variables that might affect students’ academic achievement and satisfaction [ 8 ]. In this view, distance learning is primarily determined by the number of dialogues between student and teacher and the degree of structuring of the course design. It contributes to the core objective of the degree to boost students’ modular learning experiences in terms of satisfaction. On the other hand, Bloom’s Taxonomy Theory (BTT) was applied to investigate the students’ academic achievements through modular distance learning [ 6 ]. Bloom’s theory was employed in addition to TDT during this study to enhance students’ modular educational experiences. Moreover, TDT was utilized to check students’ modular learning experiences in conjuction with enhacing students’ achievements.

This study aimed to detect the impact of modular distance learning on K-12 students during the COVID-19 pandemic and assess the cognitive factors affecting academic achievement and student satisfaction. Despite the challenging status of the COVID-19 outbreak, the researcher anticipated a relevant result of modular distance learning and pedagogical changes in students, including the cognitive factors identified during this paper as latent variables as possible predictors for the utilization of K-12 student academic achievements and satisfaction.

1.1. Theoretical Research Framework

This study used TDT to assess student satisfaction and Bloom’s theory to quantify academic achievement. It aimed to assess the impact of modular distance learning on academic achievement and student satisfaction among K-12 students. The Transactional Distance Theory (TDT) was selected for this study since it refers to student-instructor distance learning. TDT Moore (1993) states that distance education is “the universe of teacher-learner connections when learners and teachers are separated by place and time.” Moore’s (1990) concept of ”Transactional Distance” adopts the distance that occurs in all linkages in education, according to TDT Moore (1993). Transactional distance theory is theoretically critical because it states that the most important distance is transactional in distance education, rather than geographical or temporal [ 9 , 10 ]. According to Garrison (2000), transactional distance theory is essential in directing the complicated experience of a cognitive process such as distance teaching and learning. TDT evaluates the role of each of these factors (student perception, discourse, and class organization), which can help with student satisfaction research [ 11 ]. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a theoretical framework for learning created by Benjamin Bloom that distinguishes three learning domains: Cognitive domain skills center on knowledge, comprehension, and critical thinking on a particular subject. Bloom recognized three components of educational activities: cognitive knowledge (or mental abilities), affective attitude (or emotions), and psychomotor skills (or physical skills), all of which can be used to assess K-12 students’ academic achievement. According to Jung (2001), “Transactional distance theory provides a significant conceptual framework for defining and comprehending distance education in general and a source of research hypotheses in particular,” shown in Figure 1 [ 12 ].

Theoretical Research Framework.

1.2. Hypothesis Developments and Literature Review

This section will discuss the study hypothesis and relate each hypothesis to its related studies from the literature.

There is a significant relationship between students’ background and students’ behavior .

The teacher’s guidance is essential for students’ preparedness and readiness to adapt to a new educational environment. Most students opt for the Department of Education’s “modular” distance learning options [ 3 ]. Analyzing students’ study time is critical for behavioral engagement because it establishes if academic performance is the product of student choice or historical factors [ 13 ].

There is a significant relationship between students’ background and students’ experience .

Modules provide goals, experiences, and educational activities that assist students in gaining self-sufficiency at their speed. It also boosts brain activity, encourages motivation, consolidates self-satisfaction, and enables students to remember what they have learned [ 14 ]. Despite its success, many families face difficulties due to their parents’ lack of skills and time [ 15 ].

There is a significant relationship between students’ behavior and students’ instructor interaction .

Students’ capacity to answer problems reflects their overall information awareness [ 5 ]. Learning outcomes can either cause or result in students and instructors behavior. Students’ reading issues are due to the success of online courses [ 16 ].

There is a significant relationship between students’ experience and students’ instructor interaction .

The words “student experience” relate to classroom participation. They establish a connection between students and their school, teachers, classmates, curriculum, and teaching methods [ 17 ]. The three types of student engagement are behavioral, emotional, and cognitive. Behavioral engagement refers to a student’s enthusiasm for academic and extracurricular activities. On the other hand, emotional participation is linked to how children react to their peers, teachers, and school. Motivational engagement refers to a learner’s desire to learn new abilities [ 18 ].

There is a significant relationship between students’ behavior and students’ understanding .

Individualized learning connections, outstanding training, and learning culture are all priorities at the Institute [ 19 , 20 ]. The modular technique of online learning offers additional flexibility. The use of modules allows students to investigate alternatives to the professor’s session [ 21 ].

There is a significant relationship between students’ experience and students’ performance .

Student conduct is also vital in academic accomplishment since it may affect a student’s capacity to study as well as the learning environment for other students. Students are self-assured because they understand what is expected [ 22 ]. They are more aware of their actions and take greater responsibility for their learning.

There is a significant relationship between students’ instructor interaction and students’ understanding .

Modular learning benefits students by enabling them to absorb and study material independently and on different courses. Students are more likely to give favorable reviews to courses and instructors if they believe their professors communicated effectively and facilitated or supported their learning [ 23 ].

There is a significant relationship between students’ instructor interaction and students’ performance.

Students are more engaged and active in their studies when they feel in command and protected in the classroom. Teachers play an essential role in influencing student academic motivation, school commitment, and disengagement. In studies on K-12 education, teacher-student relationships have been identified [ 24 ]. Positive teacher-student connections improve both teacher attitudes and academic performance.

There is a significant relationship between students’ understanding and students’ satisfaction .

Instructors must create well-structured courses, regularly present in their classes, and encourage student participation. When learning objectives are completed, students better understand the course’s success and learning expectations. “Constructing meaning from verbal, written, and graphic signals by interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining” is how understanding is characterized [ 25 ].

There is a significant relationship between students’ performance and student’s academic achievement .

Academic emotions are linked to students’ performance, academic success, personality, and classroom background [ 26 ]. Understanding the elements that may influence student performance has long been a goal for educational institutions, students, and teachers.

There is a significant relationship between students’ understanding and students’ academic achievement .

Modular education views each student as an individual with distinct abilities and interests. To provide an excellent education, a teacher must adapt and individualize the educational curriculum for each student. Individual learning may aid in developing a variety of exceptional and self-reliant attributes [ 27 ]. Academic achievement is the current level of learning in the Philippines [ 28 ].

There is a significant relationship between students’ performance and students’ satisfaction .

Academic success is defined as a student’s intellectual development, including formative and summative assessment data, coursework, teacher observations, student interaction, and time on a task [ 29 ]. Students were happier with course technology, the promptness with which content was shared with the teacher, and their overall wellbeing [ 30 ].

There is a significant relationship between students’ academic achievement and students’ perceived effectiveness .

Student satisfaction is a short-term mindset based on assessing students’ educational experiences [ 29 ]. The link between student satisfaction and academic achievement is crucial in today’s higher education: we discovered that student satisfaction with course technical components was linked to a higher relative performance level [ 31 ].

There is a significant relationship between students’ satisfaction and students’ perceived effectiveness.

There is a strong link between student satisfaction and their overall perception of learning. A satisfied student is a direct effect of a positive learning experience. Perceived learning results had a favorable impact on student satisfaction in the classroom [ 32 ].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. participants.

The principal area under study was San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, although other locations were also accepted. The survey took place between February and March 2022, with the target population of K-12 students in Junior and Senior High Schools from grades 7 to 12, aged 12 to 20, who are now implementing the Modular Approach in their studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. A 45-item questionnaire was created and circulated online to collect the information. A total of 300 online surveys was sent out and 252 online forms were received, a total of 84% response rate [ 33 ]. According to several experts, the sample size for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) should be between 200 and 500 [ 34 ].

2.2. Questionnaire

The theoretical framework developed a self-administered test. The researcher created the questionnaire to examine and discover the probable cognitive capacity influencing K-12 students’ academic achievement in different parts of Occidental Mindoro during this pandemic as well as their satisfaction with modular distance learning. The questionnaire was designed through Google drive as people’s interactions are limited due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaire’s link was sent via email, Facebook, and other popular social media platforms.

The respondents had to complete two sections of the questionnaire. The first is their demographic information, including their age, gender, and grade level. The second is about their perceptions of modular learning. The questionnaire is divided into 12 variables: (1) Student’s Background, (2) Student’s Experience, (3) Student’s Behavior, (4) Student’s Instructor Interaction, (5) Student’s Performance, (6) Student’s Understanding, (7) Student’s Satisfaction, (8) Student’s Academic Achievement, and (9) Student’s Perceived Effectiveness. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess all latent components contained in the SEM shown in Table 1 .

The construct and measurement items.

2.3. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

All the variables have been adapted from a variety of research in the literature. The observable factors were scored on a Likert scale of 1–5, with one indicating “strongly disagree” and five indicating “strongly agree”, and the data were analyzed using AMOS software. Theoretical model data were confirmed by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). SEM is more suitable for testing the hypothesis than other methods [ 53 ]. There are many fit indices in the literature, of which the most commonly used are: CMIN/DF, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), AGFI, GFI, and Root Mean Square Error (RMSEA). Table 2 demonstrates the Good Fit Values and Acceptable Fit Values of the fit indices, respectively. AGFI and GFI are based on residuals; when sample size increases, the value of the AGFI also increase. It takes a value between 0 and 1. The fit is good if the value is more significant than 0.80. GFI is a model index that spans from 0 to 1, with values above 0.80 deemed acceptable. An RMSEA of 0.08 or less suggests a good fit [ 54 ], and a value of 0.05 to 0.08 indicates an adequate fit [ 55 ].

Acceptable Fit Values.

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 2 demonstrates the initial SEM for the cognitive factors of Modular Distance learning towards academic achievements and satisfaction of K-12 students during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the figure below, three hypotheses were not significant: Students’ Behavior to Students’ Instructor Interaction (Hypothesis 3), Students’ Understanding of Students’ Academic Achievement (Hypothesis 11), and Students’ Performance to Students’ Satisfaction (Hypothesis 12). Therefore, a revised SEM was derived by removing this hypothesis in Figure 3 . We modified some indices to enhance the model fit based on previous studies using the SEM approach [ 47 ]. Figure 3 demonstrates the final SEM for evaluating cognitive factors affecting academic achievements and satisfaction and the perceived effectiveness of K-12 students’ response to Modular Learning during COVID-19, shown in Table 3 . Moreover, Table 4 demonstrates the descriptive statistical results of each indicator.

Initial SEM with indicators for evaluating the cognitive factors of modular distance learning towards academic achievements and satisfaction of K-12 students during COVID-19 pandemic.

Revised SEM with indicators for evaluating the cognitive factors of modular distance learning towards academic achievements and satisfaction of K-12 students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Summary of the Results.

Descriptive statistic results.

The current study was improved by Moore’s transactional distance theory (TDT) and Bloom’s taxonomy theory (BTT) to evaluate cognitive factors affecting academic achievements and satisfaction and the perceived effectiveness of K-12 students’ response toward modular learning during COVID-19. SEM was utilized to analyze the correlation between Student Background (SB), Student Experience (SE), Student Behavior (SBE), Student Instructor Interaction (SI), Student Performance (SP), Student Understanding (SAU), Student Satisfaction (SS), Student’s Academic achievement (SAA), and Student’s Perceived effectiveness (SPE). A total of 252 data samples were acquired through an online questionnaire.

According to the findings of the SEM, the students’ background in modular learning had a favorable and significant direct effect on SE (β: 0.848, p = 0.009). K-12 students should have a background and knowledge in modular systems to better experience this new education platform. Putting the students through such an experience would support them in overcoming all difficulties that arise due to the limitations of the modular platforms. Furthermore, SEM revealed that SE had a significant adverse impact on SI (β: 0.843, p = 0.009). The study shows that students who had previous experience with modular education had more positive perceptions of modular platforms. Additionally, students’ experience with modular distance learning offers various benefits to them and their instructors to enhance students’ learning experiences, particularly for isolated learners.

Regarding the Students’ Interaction—Instructor, it positively impacts SAU (β: 0.873, p = 0.007). Communication helps students experience positive emotions such as comfort, satisfaction, and excitement, which aim to enhance their understanding and help them attain their educational goals [ 62 ]. The results revealed that SP substantially impacted SI (β: 0.765; p = 0.005). A student becomes more academically motivated and engaged by creating and maintaining strong teacher-student connections, which leads to successful academic performance.

Regarding the Students’ Understanding Response, the results revealed that SAA (β: 0.307; p = 0.052) and SS (β: 0.699; p = 0.008) had a substantial impact on SAU. Modular teaching is concerned with each student as an individual and with their specific capability and interest to assist each K-12 student in learning and provide quality education by allowing individuality to each learner. According to the Department of Education, academic achievement is the new level for student learning [ 63 ]. Meanwhile, SAA was significantly affected by the Students’ Performance Response (β: 0.754; p = 0.014). It implies that a positive performance can give positive results in student’s academic achievement, and that a negative performance can also give negative results [ 64 ]. Pekrun et al. (2010) discovered that students’ academic emotions are linked to their performance, academic achievement, personality, and classroom circumstances [ 26 ].

Results showed that students’ academic achievement significantly positively affects SPE (β: 0.237; p = 0.024). Prior knowledge has had an indirect effect on academic accomplishment. It influences the amount and type of current learning system where students must obtain a high degree of mastery [ 65 ]. According to the student’s opinion, modular distance learning is an alternative solution for providing adequate education for all learners and at all levels in the current scenario under the new education policy [ 66 ]. However, the SEM revealed that SS significantly affected SPE (β: 0.868; p = 0.009). Students’ perceptions of learning and satisfaction, when combined, can provide a better knowledge of learning achievement [ 44 ]. Students’ perceptions of learning outcomes are an excellent predictor of student satisfaction.

Since p -values and the indicators in Students’ Behavior are below 0.5, therefore two paths connecting SBE to students’ interaction—instructor (0.155) and students’ understanding (0.212) are not significant; thus, the latent variable Students’ Behavior has no effect on the latent variable Students’ Satisfaction and academic achievement as well as perceived effectiveness on modular distance learning of K12 students. This result is supported by Samsen-Bronsveld et al. (2022), who revealed that the environment has no direct influence on the student’s satisfaction, behavior engagement, and motivation to study [ 67 ]. On the other hand, the results also showed no significant relationship between Students’ Performance and Students’ Satisfaction (0.602) because the correlation p -values are greater than 0.5. Interestingly, this result opposed the other related studies. According to Bossman & Agyei (2022), satisfaction significantly affects performance or learning outcomes [ 68 ]. In addition, it was discovered that the main drivers of the students’ performance are the students’ satisfaction [ 64 , 69 ].

The result of the study implies that the students’ satisfaction serves as the mediator between the students’ performance and the student-instructor interaction in modular distance learning for K-12 students [ 70 ].

Table 5 The reliabilities of the scales used, i.e., Cronbach’s alphas, ranged from 0.568 to 0.745, which were in line with those found in other studies [ 71 ]. As presented in Table 6 , the IFI, TLI, and CFI values were greater than the suggested cutoff of 0.80, indicating that the specified model’s hypothesized construct accurately represented the observed data. In addition, the GFI and AGFI values were 0.828 and 0.801, respectively, indicating that the model was also good. The RMSEA value was 0.074, lower than the recommended value. Finally, the direct, indirect, and total effects are presented in Table 7 .

Construct Validity Model.

Direct effect, indirect effect, and total effect.

Table 6 shows that the five parameters, namely the Incremental Fit Index, Tucker Lewis Index, the Comparative Fit Index, Goodness of Fit Index, and Adjusted Goodness Fit Index, are all acceptable with parameter estimates greater than 0.8, whereas mean square error is excellent with parameter estimates less than 0.08.

4. Conclusions

The education system has been affected by the 2019 coronavirus disease; face-to-face classes are suspended to control and reduce the spread of the virus and infections [ 2 ]. The suspension of face-to-face classes results in the application of modular distance learning for K-12 students according to continuity of learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. With the outbreak of COVID-19, some issues concerning students’ academic Performance and factors associated with students’ psychological status are starting to emerge, which impacted the students’ ability to learn. This study aimed to perceive the impact of Modular Distance learning on the K-12 students amid the COVID-19 pandemic and assess cognitive factors affecting students’ academic achievement and satisfaction.

This study applied Transactional Distance Theory (TDT) and Bloom Taxonomy Theory (BTT) to evaluate cognitive factors affecting students’ academic achievements and satisfaction and evaluate the perceived effectiveness of K-12 students in response to modular learning. This study applied Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to test hypotheses. The application of SEM analyzed the correlation among students’ background, experience, behavior, instructor interaction, performance, understanding, satisfaction, academic achievement, and student perceived effectiveness.

A total of 252 data samples were gathered through an online questionnaire. Based on findings, this study concludes that students’ background in modular distance learning affects their behavior and experience. Students’ experiences had significant effects on the performance and understanding of students in modular distance learning. Student instructor interaction had a substantial impact on performance and learning; it explains how vital interaction with the instructor is. The student interacting with the instructor shows that the student may receive feedback and guidance from the instructor. Understanding has a significant influence on students’ satisfaction and academic achievement. Student performance has a substantial impact on students’ academic achievement and satisfaction. Perceived effectiveness was significantly influenced by students’ academic achievement and student satisfaction. However, students’ behavior had no considerable effect on students’ instructor interaction, and students’ understanding while student performance equally had no significant impact on student satisfaction. From this study, students are likely to manifest good performance, behavior, and cognition when they have prior knowledge with regard to modular distance learning. This study will help the government, teachers, and students take the necessary steps to improve and enhance modular distance learning that will benefit students for effective learning.

The modular learning system has been in place since its inception. One of its founding metaphoric pillars is student satisfaction with modular learning. The organization demonstrated its dedication to the student’s voice as a component of understanding effective teaching and learning. Student satisfaction research has been transformed by modular learning. It has caused the education research community to rethink long-held assumptions that learning occurs primarily within a metaphorical container known as a “course.” When reviewing studies on student satisfaction from a factor analytic perspective, one thing becomes clear: this is a complex system with little consensus. Even the most recent factor analytical studies have done little to address the lack of understanding of the dimensions underlying satisfaction with modular learning. Items about student satisfaction with modular distance learning correspond to forming a psychological contract in factor analytic studies. The survey responses are reconfigured into a smaller number of latent (non-observable) dimensions that the students never really articulate but are fully expected to satisfy. Of course, instructors have contracts with their students. Studies such as this one identify the student’s psychological contact after the fact, rather than before the class. The most important aspect is the rapid adoption of this teaching and learning mode in Senior High School. Another balancing factor is the growing sense of student agency in the educational process. Students can express their opinions about their educational experiences in formats ranging from end-of-course evaluation protocols to various social networks, making their voices more critical.

Furthermore, they all agreed with latent trait theory, which holds that the critical dimensions that students differentiate when expressing their opinions about modular learning are formed by the combination of the original items that cannot be directly observed—which underpins student satisfaction. As stated in the literature, the relationship between student satisfaction and the characteristic of a psychological contract is illustrated. Each element is translated into how it might be expressed in the student’s voice, and then a contract feature and an assessment strategy are added. The most significant contributor to the factor pattern, engaged learning, indicates that students expect instructors to play a facilitative role in their teaching. This dimension corresponds to the relational contract, in which the learning environment is stable and well organized, with a clear path to success.

5. Limitations and Future Work

This study was focused on the cognitive capacity of modular distance learning towards academic achievements and satisfaction of K-12 students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sample size in this study was small, at only 252. If this study is repeated with a larger sample size, it will improve the results. The study’s restriction was to the province of Occidental Mindoro; Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to measure all the variables. Thus, this will give an adequate solution to the problem in the study.

The current study underlines that combining TDT and BTT can positively impact the research outcome. The contribution the current study might make to the field of modular distance learning has been discussed and explained. Based on this research model, the nine (9) factors could broadly clarify the students’ adoption of new learning environment platform features. Thus, the current research suggests that more investigation be carried out to examine relationships among the complexity of modular distance learning.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Data collection, methodology, writing and editing, K.A.M.; data collection, writing—review and editing, Y.-T.J. and C.S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement.

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Modular Distance Learning: Its Effect in the Academic Performance of Learners in the New Normal

JETL (Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning)

Due to Covid-19 pandemic, schools, particularly in the rural areas employed Modular Distance Learning (MDL) to ensure education continuity. This study seeks to investigate the effects of MDL in the academic performance of learners whether there is a significant difference in their performance before and after the implementation of MDL. Mixed method was applied in this study; Quantitative using T-Test to compare the GWA of learners and Qualitative through the use of semi-structured interview to find out the perceived effect of MDL to 15 parents, 10 learners, and 7 teachers and their recommendations. The study revealed that the 2.25% decrease in the GWA of learners after the implementation of MDL denotes a significant difference in their academic performance. MDL strengthens family bonding, independent learning, and is cost-effective. However, it is an additional workload to working parents, there is limited teacher-learner interaction, learners lack socialization with other children ...

Related Papers

Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal

Psychology and Education , ROMEL LAGRIO

The education sector was greatly affected by the global health crisis of COVID-19, resulting in massive changes in our education setup , which contributed to various problems and challenges encountered during the implementation of the modular distance learning modality. This study aimed to determine the strategies and challenges encountered by teachers in implementing modular distance learning and its impact on students' academic performance. A descriptive research design was employed. The researchers utilized an online survey method for data gathering. A total of 60 teachers and 187 selected Grade 7 learners were the study's respondents utilizing total enumeration for teachers and stratified random sampling for learners.The study's findings show that teachers could employ strategies such as setting a submission schedule and creating a group chat with the learners. Moreover, establish the appropriate health and safety protocols and safety nets for learners against violence and abuse at home and in the community, and train school personnel for the Learning Delivery Modality (LMD).On the other hand, teachers professed that printing modules were time-consuming, the distance of the learner's home from the school hindered the teachers in providing technical assistance, and learners needed help following instructions. Parents answered the modules of the learners. The need for printing materials was a significant challenge.Most of the student's grades during the first quarter were within the range of 80-84, which was considered a satisfactory academic performance. Moreover, the results signified a negligible negative correlation between teachers' strategies in implementing modular distance learning and students' academic performance. The study suggests revisiting the school's plans for implementing modular distance learning and strengthening the partnership of the school, parents, and stakeholders.

IJMRAP Editor

During this pandemic, several schools opted for modular remote education. One of the elementary schools that selected Modular Distance Learning (MDL) as their primary mode of instruction for various reasons is Antipuluan Elementary School, a public elementary school in the Municipality of Narra, Palawan, the Philippines. However, the usage of this modality, which is unknown to many, has presented difficulties for everyone-including school staff, students, and their parents. Hence the conduct of this study. This quantitative research employed a Descriptive-Correlational Approach and involved 15 elementary teachers, 141 pupils, and 141 parents as the main data sources. A researcher-made questionnaire was used to collect data, which was then analyzed using mean, standard deviation, and Pearson product-moment correlation. The study found that the extent of Modular Distance Learning modality implementation was High, teachers', pupils', and parents' degrees of acceptance of the MDL implementation were High, and there was a strong relationship between the teachers' degree of acceptance of MDL implementation and the degree of its implementation. The perceived effects of MDL implementation have a direct relationship with the degree of their acceptance by teachers and parents.

Psychology and Education

This study investigated the limitations experienced by students, parents, and teachers in the implementation of Modular Distance Learning in Lagundi-CCL National High School during the school year 2021-2022. The researcher utilized the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of research. An online research questionnaire utilizing Google Form was used to gather necessary information from the eighty (80) students, eighty (80) parents, and thirty-one (31) teachers who served as the respondents of this paper. Based on the results, the three major limitations experienced by students were: 1) insufficient knowledge of parents/ family members; 2) unavailability of gadgets; and 3) too many activities. In addition, parents' three major limitations were: 1) insufficient knowledge about the lessons; 2) difficulties in schedule of distribution and retrieval of modules; and 3) working parents. Furthermore, the identified limitations of teachers were: 1) too many additional tasks for teachers; 2) unavailability of self-learning modules; and 3) students who were lagging behind. From these limitations the respondents had given their suggestions. The students suggested that: 1) lessen the activities that are given to them; 2) conduct an online class even once a week; and 3) give additional time to answer the learning tasks. Meanwhile, parents' suggestions were: 1) enough information and examples in the modules should be given; 2) lessen the learning tasks; and 3) guide the parents on how to assist their children. Lastly, teachers' suggestions include: 1) proper dissemination of program, projects, and activities related to modular distance learning; 2) capacitate parents and students on MDL; and 3) distribution and retrieval should be done every other two weeks. The researchers crafted a process framework which may serve as basis in the modification of the implementation of modular distance learning which included seven (7) strategic dimensions.

International Journal of Applied Research in Social Sciences

Gerald Malabarbas

Face-to-face classes were temporarily suspended and shifted to modular print learning modality due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aimed to determine if there significant difference and relationship between parents’ involvement in modular distance learning and the academic performance of the Grade 6 learners in a public elementary school. The results revealed that parents’ involvement in their child&#39;s MDL varies substantially according to their educational attainment and family monthly income. Similarly, the educational attainment of parents and their family&#39;s monthly income are predictors of their children&#39;s academic achievement. Furthermore, it was disclosed that fathers were more likely than mothers to be involved in the learners&#39; MDL. The findings also revealed that there was a correlation between parents&#39; involvement in modular learning and their children&#39;s academic performance. Furthermore, the study supports prior results that parental involvement ...

Indonesian Journal of Educational Research and Review

Leomarich Casinillo

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools, particularly in rural areas, employed Modular Distance Learning (MDL) to ensure educational continuity. Modular distance learning is the current learning modality of primary education, where parents serve as parent-teachers to their children. This study seeks to evaluate the experiences of students and teachers of Elementary School, on modular distance learning during the pandemic. This study used the qualitative method of interviewing nine students and six teachers to learn about their MDL experiences. Data process involves combining related concepts and themes to produce a more structured and organized picture of the data. MDL strengthens family bonding, promotes independent learning, and economizes money and time. However, it is an additional workload for working parents; there needs to be more teacher-student interaction, preventing pupils from socializing and gadget distractions. The article revealed that MDL has positive and negative experiences for teachers and students. Therefore, the impact may vary depending on individual circumstances and adaptability. The study suggests that suitable strategies should address any challenges during implementation and evaluation. Furthermore, teachers must undergo training related to MDL to address existing problems in delivering their lessons.

AJHSSR Journal

The general purpose of this study was to find out the level of extent on the parental involvement in the implementation of modular distance learning approach in Botolan District, Division of Zambales, Philippines during school year 2020-2021. The study revealed that the parent-respondent is a typical female in her early adulthood, married, high school graduate with part-time work and meagre income whose children are at primary grade level. The academic performance of the parent-respondents' children was assessed-Very Satisfactory‖. Perceived-Highly Involved‖ on Parent as a Teacher and Acceptance of the Self-Learning Module while-Involved‖ on Submission of the Self-Learning Module. There is significant difference when grouped according to highest educational attainment towards Parent as a Teacher, Acceptance and Submission of the Self-learning module respectively; significant when grouped according to family income towards Parent as Teacher and Acceptance of the Self-Learning Module; while significant on number of children studying in the elementary level towards Parent as Teacher and Submission of the Self-Learning Module respectively. There is significant difference on the perception towards dimensions on the level ofextent on the parental involvement in the implementation of modular distance learning approach. There is negatively weak or little relationship between the level of academic performance and the level ofextent on the parental involvement in the implementation of modular distance learning approach. Based on the summary of the investigations conducted and the conclusions arrived at, the researcher recommended that the parents are encouraged to be given orientation to heighten awareness on their respective limited roles in the implementation of the self-learning modular approach; that parents are encouraged to help children developed with high levels of self-directed learning, to have strong for learning.\

COVID-19 Pandemics have an impact on many aspects of life, including education. The Department of Education developed the Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan in response to the outbreak. This plan outlines learning delivery techniques such as blended learning, which is a combination of face-to-face, modular distance learning, and TV/radio-based education based on the learners' context. As a result, the DepEd permits schools to select a learning mode depending on available resources and student requirements. Thus, this study investigates the primary teachers' readiness, parental support towards modular distance learning, and its effects to the learners' performance. Based on the findings drawn from the study, the following conclusion drawn: The levels of Teachers readiness were very much ready. While in the level of parental support were much supportive. Lastly, the learner's performance was satisfactory. Moreover, it is concluded that teacher's readiness and leaners performance had no bearing with the way learners performed in class while the parental challenges and learners performance were associated with the way learners performed in class.

Psychology and Education , Maritis Magallanes Cagas , Myra A. Ambalong

Parents' engagement played an important role in parent-teacher partnership in educating the children to have a harmonious collaboration in motivating the children's learning. Due to this pandemic, parents were appreciated as facilitators in the learning process of the learners since children were not allowed to go to school for face-to-face interaction with the teacher. Modular Distance learning modalities were implemented most of the schools especially Dalamas Integrated School wherein internet connection was not available in the said area. This study aimed to assess the parents' engagement in modular distance learning and the learners' academic performance in the school year 2021-2022. The study utilized the descriptive-correlational research design. Findings revealed that the respondents' engagement in modular distance learning helped them realize that education was very important to their children and that they encouraged their children to do their homework. However, the data revealed that engagement of parents in modular distance learning did not necessarily affect the academic performance of the learners and that their engagement was not differentiated based on their socio-demographic profile.

Psychology and Education , Ehlz Marie N. Sacnanas

As educational system was hit by a global catastrophe, the introduction of modular distance learning outspread to sustain the quality of education towards the learners. To make this work, parents forced to embrace the new system of learning. With this, the parents were having a hard time on scheduling between their work and children's learning, and on facilitating the learning from home scheme. This study dug into the parents' involvement and attitude towards the modular distance learning system. The data were evaluated by interpretation and the method used in gathering data is qualitative. Content analysis allows researchers identify and analyze the correct words, topics, or concepts. The researchers conducted interviews to six parents from Badian, Cebu. The parents' involvement in this study were determined by purposive sampling technique. From the responses of the parents, the researchers developed three essential themes: (1) The Challenges, (2) The Time, (3) The Rating, (4) The Improvement, and (5) The Advantages and Disadvantages. These themes emphasized the lived experiences and battles of the parents in the distance learning system during the pandemic. The researchers were able to extract problems and meaning of consequences for parents' lived experience of MDL. Parents' talent in shaping their children's learning is not an easy job, rather it was found to be difficult. But additional colors were added to help shape it and made the children's future more worthwhile.

EPRA International Journal of Research &amp; Development (IJRD)

Emma Trovela

This research investigated the parents and learners’ perceptions on modular distance learning that they are experiencing during this time of pandemic as part contemporary new normal education setup. The main purpose of this study was to understand parents’ and learners’ perceptions on modular distance learning as contemporary teaching strategy and how they coped with the experiences and challenges of the new normal education settings. The participants of this study where five (5) senior high school learners and five (5) parents/guardians of senior high school learners of Sta. Catalina Integrated National High School. The research was conducted in Majayjay District from School Year 2020-2021. This study used Qualitative Research through Descriptive research where in-depth interviewing and storytelling was done to gather the narratives or accounts of the research participants. Using an interview protocol and with a strong collaboration with the participants, the researcher will manage...

RELATED PAPERS

Giuseppe Marrani

Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering

Hossein jalalifar

Thomas van Gulik

Carmen Morán Rodríguez

Journal of Plasma Physics

Alexander Oreshko

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

Peadar Waters

Life Sciences

Elisa Toscano

Moulay Ismaili

Romanian Journal of Legal Medicine

Eva Nevicka

Acta Biomaterialia

J. Santerre

Leonard Seeff

International journal of systematic bacteriology

Karel Kersters

Qori Fajar Hermawan

Russian Linguistics

Elmira Zhamaletdinova

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)

Christophe Saint-Jean

Journal of Chemical Education

Jacopo Galimberti

办philau毕业证书 美国费城大学毕业证文凭学位证书原版一模一样

Revista Cubana De Tecnologia De La Salud

Yuleiky Rodriguez

Neuropsychologia

Liliana Ramona Demenescu

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 7, July 2021, Online: ISSN 2320-9186

www.globalscientificjournal.com

How technology is shaping learning in higher education

About the authors.

This article is a collaborative effort by Claudio Brasca, Charag Krishnan , Varun Marya , Katie Owen, Joshua Sirois, and Shyla Ziade, representing views from McKinsey’s Education Practice.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced a shift to remote learning overnight for most higher-education students, starting in the spring of 2020. To complement video lectures and engage students in the virtual classroom, educators adopted technologies that enabled more interactivity and hybrid models of online and in-person activities. These tools changed learning, teaching, and assessment in ways that may persist after the pandemic. Investors have taken note. Edtech start-ups raised record amounts of venture capital in 2020 and 2021, and market valuations for bigger players soared.

A study conducted by McKinsey in 2021 found that to engage most effectively with students, higher-education institutions can focus on eight dimensions  of the learning experience. In this article, we describe the findings of a study of the learning technologies that can enable aspects of several of those eight dimensions (see sidebar “Eight dimensions of the online learning experience”).

Eight dimensions of the online learning experience

Leading online higher-education institutions focus on eight key dimensions of the learning experience across three overarching principles.

Seamless journey

Clear education road map: “My online program provides a road map to achieve my life goals and helps me structure my day to day to achieve steady progress.”

Seamless connections: “I have one-click access to classes and learning resources in the virtual learning platform through my laptop or my phone.”

Engaging teaching approach

Range of learning formats: “My program offers a menu of engaging courses with both self-guided and real-time classes, and lots of interaction with instructors and peers.”

Captivating experiences: “I learn from the best professors and experts. My classes are high quality, with up-to-date content.”

Adaptive learning: “I access a personalized platform that helps me practice exercises and exams and gives immediate feedback without having to wait for the course teacher.”

Real-world skills application: “My online program helps me get hands-on practice using exciting virtual tools to solve real-world problems.”

Caring network

Timely support: “I am not alone in my learning journey and have adequate 24/7 support for academic and nonacademic issues.”

Strong community: “I feel part of an academic community and I’m able to make friends online.”

In November 2021, McKinsey surveyed 600 faculty members and 800 students from public and private nonprofit colleges and universities in the United States, including minority-serving institutions, about the use and impact of eight different classroom learning technologies (Exhibit 1). (For more on the learning technologies analyzed in this research, see sidebar “Descriptions of the eight learning technologies.”) To supplement the survey, we interviewed industry experts and higher-education professionals who make decisions about classroom technology use. We discovered which learning tools and approaches have seen the highest uptake, how students and educators view them, the barriers to higher adoption, how institutions have successfully adopted innovative technologies, and the notable impacts on learning (for details about our methodology, see sidebar “About the research”).

Double-digit growth in adoption and positive perceptions

Descriptions of the eight learning technologies.

• Classroom interactions: These are software platforms that allow students to ask questions, make comments, respond to polls, and attend breakout discussions in real time, among other features. They are downloadable and accessible from phones, computers, and tablets, relevant to all subject areas, and useful for remote and in-person learning.
• Classroom exercises: These platforms gamify learning with fun, low-stakes competitions, pose problems to solve during online classes, allow students to challenge peers to quizzes, and promote engagement with badges and awards. They are relevant to all subject areas.
• Connectivity and community building: A broad range of informal, opt-in tools, these allow students to engage with one another and instructors and participate in the learning community. They also include apps that give students 24/7 asynchronous access to lectures, expanded course materials, and notes with enhanced search and retrieval functionality.
• Group work: These tools let students collaborate in and out of class via breakout/study rooms, group preparation for exams and quizzes, and streamlined file sharing.
• Augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR): Interactive simulations immerse learners in course content, such as advanced lab simulations for hard sciences, medical simulations for nursing, and virtual exhibit tours for the liberal arts. AR can be offered with proprietary software on most mobile or laptop devices. VR requires special headsets, proprietary software, and adequate classroom space for simultaneous use.
• AI adaptive course delivery: Cloud-based, AI-powered software adapts course content to a student’s knowledge level and abilities. These are fully customizable by instructors and available in many subject areas, including business, humanities, and sciences.
• Machine learning–powered teaching assistants: Also known as chatbot programs, machine learning–powered teaching assistants answer student questions and explain course content outside of class. These can auto-create, deliver, and grade assignments and exams, saving instructors’ time; they are downloadable from mobile app stores and can be accessed on personal devices.
• Student progress monitoring: These tools let instructors monitor academic progress, content mastery, and engagement. Custom alerts and reports identify at-risk learners and help instructors tailor the content or their teaching style for greater effectiveness. This capability is often included with subscriptions to adaptive learning platforms.

Survey respondents reported a 19 percent average increase in overall use of these learning technologies since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Technologies that enable connectivity and community building, such as social media–inspired discussion platforms and virtual study groups, saw the biggest uptick in use—49 percent—followed by group work tools, which grew by 29 percent (Exhibit 2). These technologies likely fill the void left by the lack of in-person experiences more effectively than individual-focused learning tools such as augmented reality and virtual reality (AR/VR). Classroom interaction technologies such as real-time chatting, polling, and breakout room discussions were the most widely used tools before the pandemic and remain so; 67 percent of survey respondents said they currently use these tools in the classroom.

About the research

In November 2021, McKinsey surveyed 634 faculty members and 818 students from public, private, and minority-serving colleges and universities over a ten-day period. The survey included only students and faculty who had some remote- or online-learning experience with any of the eight featured technologies. Respondents were 63 percent female, 35 percent male, and 2 percent other gender identities; 69 percent White, 18 percent Black or African American, 8 percent Asian, and 4 percent other ethnicities; and represented every US region. The survey asked respondents about their:

• experiences with technology in the classroom pre-COVID-19;
• experiences with technology in the classroom since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
• desire for future learning experiences in relation to technology.

The shift to more interactive and diverse learning models will likely continue. One industry expert told us, “The pandemic pushed the need for a new learning experience online. It recentered institutions to think about how they’ll teach moving forward and has brought synchronous and hybrid learning into focus.” Consequently, many US colleges and universities are actively investing to scale up their online and hybrid program offerings .

Differences in adoption by type of institution observed in the research

• Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges and universities made the most use of classroom interactions and group work tools (55 percent) and the least use of tools for monitoring student progress (15 percent).
• Private institutions used classroom interaction technologies (84 percent) more than public institutions (63 percent).
• Public institutions, often associated with larger student populations and course sizes, employed group work and connectivity and community-building tools more often than private institutions.
• The use of AI teaching-assistant technologies increased significantly more at public institutions (30 percent) than at private institutions (9 percent), though overall usage remained comparatively higher at private institutions.
• The use of tools for monitoring student progress increased by 14 percent at private institutions, versus no growth at public institutions.

Some technologies lag behind in adoption. Tools enabling student progress monitoring, AR/VR, machine learning–powered teaching assistants (TAs), AI adaptive course delivery, and classroom exercises are currently used by less than half of survey respondents. Anecdotal evidence suggests that technologies such as AR/VR require a substantial investment in equipment and may be difficult to use at scale in classes with high enrollment. Our survey also revealed utilization disparities based on size. Small public institutions use machine learning–powered TAs, AR/VR, and technologies for monitoring student progress at double or more the rates of medium and large public institutions, perhaps because smaller, specialized schools can make more targeted and cost-effective investments. We also found that medium and large public institutions made greater use of connectivity and community-building tools than small public institutions (57 to 59 percent compared with 45 percent, respectively). Although the uptake of AI-powered tools was slower, higher-education experts we interviewed predict their use will increase; they allow faculty to tailor courses to each student’s progress, reduce their workload, and improve student engagement at scale (see sidebar “Differences in adoption by type of institution observed in the research”).

While many colleges and universities are interested in using more technologies to support student learning, the top three barriers indicated are lack of awareness, inadequate deployment capabilities, and cost (Exhibit 3).

Students want entertaining and efficient tools

More than 60 percent of students said that all the classroom learning technologies they’ve used since COVID-19 began had improved their learning and grades (Exhibit 4). However, two technologies earned higher marks than the rest for boosting academic performance: 80 percent of students cited classroom exercises, and 71 percent cited machine learning–powered teaching assistants.

Although AR/VR is not yet widely used, 37 percent of students said they are “most excited” about its potential in the classroom. While 88 percent of students believe AR/VR will make learning more entertaining, just 5 percent said they think it will improve their ability to learn or master content (Exhibit 5). Industry experts confirmed that while there is significant enthusiasm for AR/VR, its ability to improve learning outcomes is uncertain. Some data look promising. For example, in a recent pilot study, 1 “Immersive biology in the Alien Zoo: A Dreamscape Learn software product,” Dreamscape Learn, accessed October 2021. students who used a VR tool to complete coursework for an introductory biology class improved their subject mastery by an average of two letter grades.

Faculty embrace new tools but would benefit from more technical support and training

Faculty gave learning tools even higher marks than students did, for ease of use, engagement, access to course resources, and instructor connectivity. They also expressed greater excitement than students did for the future use of technologies. For example, while more than 30 percent of students expressed excitement for AR/VR and classroom interactions, more than 60 percent of faculty were excited about those, as well as machine learning–powered teaching assistants and AI adaptive technology.

Eighty-one percent or more of faculty said they feel the eight learning technology tools are a good investment of time and effort relative to the value they provide (Exhibit 6). Expert interviews suggest that employing learning technologies can be a strain on faculty members, but those we surveyed said this strain is worthwhile.

While faculty surveyed were enthusiastic about new technologies, experts we interviewed stressed some underlying challenges. For example, digital-literacy gaps have been more pronounced since the pandemic because it forced the near-universal adoption of some technology solutions, deepening a divide that was unnoticed when adoption was sporadic. More tech-savvy instructors are comfortable with interaction-engagement-focused solutions, while staff who are less familiar with these tools prefer content display and delivery-focused technologies.

According to experts we interviewed, learning new tools and features can bring on general fatigue. An associate vice president of e-learning at one university told us that faculty there found designing and executing a pilot study of VR for a computer science class difficult. “It’s a completely new way of instruction. . . . I imagine that the faculty using it now will not use it again in the spring.” Technical support and training help. A chief academic officer of e-learning who oversaw the introduction of virtual simulations for nursing and radiography students said that faculty holdouts were permitted to opt out but not to delay the program. “We structured it in a ‘we’re doing this together’ way. People who didn’t want to do it left, but we got a lot of support from vendors and training, which made it easy to implement simulations.”

Reimagining higher education in the United States

Takeaways from our research.

Despite the growing pains of digitizing the classroom learning experience, faculty and students believe there is a lot more they can gain. Faculty members are optimistic about the benefits, and students expect learning to stay entertaining and efficient. While adoption levels saw double-digit growth during the pandemic, many classrooms have yet to experience all the technologies. For institutions considering the investment, or those that have already started, there are several takeaways to keep in mind.

• It’s important for administration leaders, IT, and faculty to agree on what they want to accomplish by using a particular learning technology. Case studies and expert interviews suggest institutions that seek alignment from all their stakeholders before implementing new technologies are more successful. Is the primary objective student engagement and motivation? Better academic performance? Faculty satisfaction and retention? Once objectives are set, IT staff and faculty can collaborate more effectively in choosing the best technology and initiating programs.
• Factor in student access to technology before deployment. As education technology use grows, the digital divide for students puts access to education at risk. While all the institution types we surveyed use learning technologies in the classroom, they do so to varying degrees. For example, 55 percent of respondents from historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities use classroom interaction tools. This is lower than public institutions’ overall utilization rate of 64 percent and private institutions’ utilization rate of 84 percent. Similarly, 15 percent of respondents from historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities use tools for monitoring student progress, while the overall utilization rate for both public and private institutions is 25 percent.
• High-quality support eases adoption for students and faculty. Institutions that have successfully deployed new learning technologies provided technical support and training for students and guidance for faculty on how to adapt their course content and delivery. For example, institutions could include self-service resources, standardize tools for adoption, or provide stipend opportunities for faculty who attend technical training courses. One chief academic officer told us, “The adoption of platforms at the individual faculty level can be very difficult. Ease of use is still very dependent upon your IT support representative and how they will go to bat to support you.”
• Agree on impact metrics and start measuring in advance of deployment. Higher-education institutions often don’t have the means to measure the impact of their investment in learning technologies, yet it’s essential for maximizing returns. Attributing student outcomes to a specific technology can be complex due to the number of variables involved in academic performance. However, prior to investing in learning technologies, the institution and its faculty members can align on a core set of metrics to quantify and measure their impact. One approach is to measure a broad set of success indicators, such as tool usage, user satisfaction, letter grades, and DFW rates (the percentage of students who receive a D, F, or Withdraw) each term. The success indicators can then be correlated by modality—online versus hybrid versus in-class—to determine the impact of specific tools. Some universities have offered faculty grants of up to $20,000 for running pilot programs that assess whether tools are achieving high-priority objectives. “If implemented properly, at the right place, and with the right buy-in, education technology solutions are absolutely valuable and have a clear ROI,” a senior vice president of academic affairs and chief technology officer told us.

In an earlier article , we looked at the broader changes in higher education that have been prompted by the pandemic. But perhaps none has advanced as quickly as the adoption of digital learning tools. Faculty and students see substantial benefits, and adoption rates are a long way from saturation, so we can expect uptake to continue. Institutions that want to know how they stand in learning tech adoption can measure their rates and benchmark them against the averages in this article and use those comparisons to help them decide where they want to catch up or get ahead.

Claudio Brasca is a partner in McKinsey’s Bay Area office, where Varun Marya is a senior partner; Charag Krishnan is a partner in the New Jersey office; Katie Owen is an associate partner in the St. Louis office, where Joshua Sirois is a consultant; and Shyla Ziade is a consultant in the Denver office.

The authors wish to thank Paul Kim, chief technology officer and associate dean at Stanford School of Education, and Ryan Golden for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Setting a new bar for online higher education

How to transform higher-education institutions for the long term

Scaling online education: Five lessons for colleges

Microsoft Azure Blog

Category: AI + Machine Learning • 11 min read

From code to production: New ways Azure helps you build transformational AI experiences   chevron_right

By Jessica Hawk Corporate Vice President, Data, AI, and Digital Applications, Product Marketing 

What was once a distant promise is now manifesting—and not only through the type of apps that are possible, but how you can build them. With Azure, we’re meeting you where you are today—and paving the way to where you’re going. So let’s jump right into some of what you’ll learn over the next few days. Welcome to Build 2024!

Unleashing innovation: The new era of compute powering Azure AI solutions   chevron_right

By Omar Khan General Manager, Azure Product Marketing

New models added to the Phi-3 family, available on Microsoft Azure   chevron_right

By Misha Bilenko Corporate Vice President, Microsoft GenAI

AI + Machine Learning , Announcements , Azure AI Content Safety , Azure AI Studio , Azure OpenAI Service , Partners

Published May 13, 2024 • 2 min read

Introducing GPT-4o: OpenAI’s new flagship multimodal model now in preview on Azure   chevron_right

By Eric Boyd Corporate Vice President, Azure AI Platform, Microsoft

Microsoft is thrilled to announce the launch of GPT-4o, OpenAI’s new flagship model on Azure AI. This groundbreaking multimodal model integrates text, vision, and audio capabilities, setting a new standard for generative and conversational AI experiences.

AI + Machine Learning , Announcements , Azure AI , Azure Cosmos DB , Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) , Azure Migrate , Azure Web PubSub , Compute , Industry trends

Published May 6, 2024 • 5 min read

Harnessing the power of intelligent apps through modernization   chevron_right

By Mike Hulme GM, Azure Digital Applications Marketing

81% of organizations believe AI will give them a competitive edge. Applications are where AI comes to life. Intelligent applications, powered by AI and machine learning (ML) algorithms are pivotal to enhancing performance and stimulating growth. Thus, innovating with intelligent apps is crucial for businesses looking to gain competitive advantage and accelerate growth in this era of AI.

AI + Machine Learning , Announcements , Azure AI , Azure AI Search , Azure App Service , Azure Cosmos DB , Azure Database for PostgreSQL , Azure Databricks , Azure DevOps , Azure Health Data Services , Azure Machine Learning , Azure Managed Applications , Azure SQL Database , Customer stories , DevOps , Events , Microsoft Azure portal , Microsoft Copilot for Azure , Microsoft Defender for Cloud , Migration , SQL Server on Azure Virtual Machines

Published May 2, 2024 • 11 min read

What’s new in Azure Data, AI, and Digital Applications: Harness the power of intelligent apps    chevron_right

Sharing insights on technology transformation along with important updates and resources about the data, AI, and digital application solutions that make Microsoft Azure the platform for the era of AI.

Hybrid + Multicloud , Thought leadership

Published May 2, 2024 • 4 min read

Cloud Cultures, Part 8: Recapturing the entrepreneurial spirit in the American Rust Belt   chevron_right

By Corey Sanders Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Cloud for Industry

Excited to explore this industrious spirit and a cloud culture closer to home, we ventured to the Northeastern and Midwestern states—the famed Rust Belt—to learn how entrepreneurial adaptability is energizing both people and businesses in the area. 

Latest posts

Analytics , Announcements , Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) , Azure Monitor , Compute , Containers

Published June 5, 2024 • 4 min read

Announcing Advanced Container Networking Services for your Azure Kubernetes Service clusters   chevron_right

By Deepak Bansal Corporate Vice President and Technical Fellow, Microsoft Azure , and Chandan Aggarwal Partner Group Engineering Manager, Microsoft Azure

Microsoft’s Azure Container Networking team is excited to announce a new offering called Advanced Container Networking Services. It’s a suite of services built on top of existing networking solutions for Azure Kubernetes Services (AKS) to address complex challenges around observability, security, and compliance.

AI + Machine Learning , Announcements , Azure Database for PostgreSQL , Azure Machine Learning , Azure OpenAI Service , Events , Migration

Published June 5, 2024 • 5 min read

Raise the bar on AI-powered app development with Azure Database for PostgreSQL   chevron_right

By Ramnik Gulati Sr. Director, Product Marketing of Microsoft Operational Databases

By harnessing the might of PostgreSQL in the cloud—with all the scalability and convenience you expect—comes Microsoft Azure Database for PostgreSQL. This fully managed service takes the hassle out of managing your PostgreSQL instances, allowing you to focus on what really matters: building amazing, AI-powered applications.

AI + Machine Learning , Azure AI , Azure AI Services , Azure OpenAI Service , Cloud Services , Partners

Published June 4, 2024 • 10 min read

Unlock AI innovation with new joint capabilities from Microsoft and SAP   chevron_right

By Silvio Bessa General Manager, SAP Business Unit

Learn more about the transformative synergy of the Microsoft Cloud and RISE with SAP for business.

AI + Machine Learning , Announcements , Azure VMware Solution , Migration , Partners

Published May 30, 2024 • 3 min read

Microsoft and Broadcom to support license portability for VMware Cloud Foundation on Azure VMware Solution   chevron_right

By Brett Tanzer Vice President, Product Management

Microsoft and Broadcom are expanding our partnership with plans to support VMware Cloud Foundation subscriptions on Azure VMware Solution. Customers that own or purchase licenses for VMware Cloud Foundation will be able to use those licenses on Azure VMware Solution, as well as their own datacenters, giving them flexibility to meet changing business needs.

Announcements , Azure Bastion , Security

Published May 30, 2024 • 4 min read

Enhance your security capabilities with Azure Bastion Premium   chevron_right

By Aaron Tsang Product Manager, Microsoft

Microsoft Azure Bastion, now in public preview, will provide advanced recording, monitoring, and auditing capabilities for customers handling highly sensitive workloads.

AI + Machine Learning , Azure AI , Azure AI Content Safety , Azure AI Search , Azure AI Studio , Azure Cosmos DB , Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) , Azure OpenAI Service , Events

Published May 30, 2024 • 5 min read

Celebrating customers’ journeys to AI innovation at Microsoft Build 2024   chevron_right

By Victoria Sykes Product Marketing Manager, Azure AI, Microsoft

From enhancing productivity and creativity to revolutionizing customer interactions with custom copilots, our customers demonstrate the transformative power of generative AI and truly, brought Build 2024 to life. So, how’d they do it? 

AI + Machine Learning , Industry trends , Thought leadership

Published May 29, 2024 • 4 min read

IT trends show customers need computing power to take advantage of AI    chevron_right

In a recent study, Microsoft surveyed over 2,000 IT professionals across ten countries on their tech readiness for and adoption of AI as well as their concerns and challenges along the way.

AI + Machine Learning , Announcements , Azure Maps , Integration

Azure Maps: Reimagining location services with cloud and AI innovation   chevron_right

By Nick Lee Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Maps and Local

Today, we’re announcing the unification of our enterprise maps offerings under Microsoft Azure Maps. This enables our customers to accelerate innovation by leveraging other Microsoft Azure cloud services while retaining many familiar features from Bing Maps for Enterprise.

AI + Machine Learning , Announcements , Azure AI , Azure AI Studio , Azure OpenAI Service , Events

Published May 21, 2024 • 5 min read

At Microsoft Build 2024, we are excited to add new models to the Phi-3 family of small, open models developed by Microsoft.

AI + Machine Learning , Announcements , Azure AI , Azure AI Content Safety , Azure AI Services , Azure AI Studio , Azure Cosmos DB , Azure Database for PostgreSQL , Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) , Azure OpenAI Service , Azure SQL Database , Events

Published May 21, 2024 • 11 min read

• Skip to main content
• Skip to search
• Skip to footer

Products and Services

Live stream splunk's user conference for free.

Global broadcast | June 11–12, 2024

Making AI work for you

Cisco AI is where the AI hype ends and meaningful help begins.

Certifications

Cisco Validated

Announced at Cisco Live

Cisco XDR with AI Assistant

Remediate the highest-priority incidents with an AI-first XDR solution.

Cisco Networking Cloud 

One platform experience. Assured, secured, and simplified.

Secure Firewall 1200 Series

Compact, all-in-one SD-WAN firewall for your distributed enterprise branch.

Catch up on what you missed

Keynote: Vision for the Future

CEO Chuck Robbins addresses how to connect and protect your business in the AI era.

Keynote: Go Beyond

Learn about Cisco, Splunk, and reaping the benefits of the AI revolution.

Deep dive sessions

See tech announcements and strategic direction from Cisco's senior tech leaders.

View keynotes and tech sessions in the on-demand library.

Press release

Cisco Live puts AI center stage and more. 

Cisco launches $1B global AI investment fund.

Validate your AI skills with certifications

Join all Cisco U. Theater sessions live and direct from Cisco Live or replay them, access learning promos, and more. It's time to Go Beyond the basics and level up your learning.

Identity is the new perimeter

Stop identity-based attacks while providing a seamless authentication experience with Cisco Duo's new Continuous Identity Security. 

Inside Cisco

• More events

Cisco reveals Nexus HyperFabric

Cisco Nexus HyperFabric makes it easy for customers to deploy, manage, and monitor generative AI models and inference applications without deep IT knowledge and skills.

Cisco and Splunk launch integrated Full-Stack Observability experience

Using Cisco and Splunk observability solutions, customers can build an observability practice that meets their IT environment needs for on-premises, hybrid, and multicloud.

ThousandEyes Digital Experience Assurance shifts IT operations

New Cisco ThousandEyes capabilities and AI-native workflows in Cisco Networking Cloud will deliver Digital Experience Assurance, transforming IT operations.