American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
American Journal of Educational Research. 2013, 1(10), 413-418
DOI: 10.12691/education-1-10-1
Open AccessReview Article

Student Performance in a Principle of Microeconomics Course under Hybrid and Face-to-Face Delivery

Penny Verhoeven1, and Tatiana Rudchenko1

1Kennesaw State University, Georgia, USA

Pub. Date: November 21, 2013

Cite this paper:
Penny Verhoeven and Tatiana Rudchenko. Student Performance in a Principle of Microeconomics Course under Hybrid and Face-to-Face Delivery. American Journal of Educational Research. 2013; 1(10):413-418. doi: 10.12691/education-1-10-1


Abstract Designing a hybrid course entails the challenge of choosing learning activities for each of the face-to-face and online environments--and sequencing and coordinating the activities across the two environments--to promote student attainment of the course’s learning objectives. This paper presents a study comparing student performance in an undergraduate Principles of Microeconomics course taught by the same instructor under hybrid (n = 51) and face-to-face (n = 24) delivery. The percentage of hybrid students completing the course (71%) was not significantly different (chi-square = .61, p = .433) than that (79%) of the face-to-face students. A regression analysis controlling for student GPA indicated that, for students completing the course, the composite test score was, on average, an estimated 4.8 percentage points lower (p = .025, one-tailed) under hybrid delivery than under face-to-face delivery. Student GPA had a strong positive ceteris paribus impact (p = .000, one-tailed) on the composite test score. The finding of a lower level of student learning under hybrid relative to face-to-face delivery is attributed to inattentiveness to pedagogical principles in designing the hybrid course. The study serves as a caution to colleges and universities initiating or expanding their hybrid course offerings in the absence of faculty training or quality control checks. The paper closes with suggestions for further research.

hybrid course blended course face-to-face course student learning pedagogy

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


[1]  Alberts, P.P., Murray, L.A., and Stephenson, J.E. (2010). Eight Educational Considerations for Hybrid Learning. In R. Kwan, J. Fong, and F.L. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Hybrid Learning Models: Advanced Tools, Technologies, and Applications (pp. 185-202). Information Science Reference: Hershey, PA. Available: EBSCO e-book.
[2]  Allen, I.E., and Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Sloan Consortium: USA.
[3]  Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., and Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States.Sloan Consortium: USA.
[4]  Boora, R., Church, J., Madill, H., Brown, W., and Chykerda, M. (2010). Ramping up to Hybrid Teaching and Learning.In R. Kwan, J. Fong, and F.L. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Hybrid Learning Models: Advanced Tools, Technologies, and Applications (pp. 406-423). Information Science Reference: Hershey, PA. Available: EBSCO e-book.
[5]  Bowen, W.G., Chingos, M.M., Lack, K.A., and Nygren, T.I. (May 22, 2012). Interactive Learning Online at Public Universities: Evidence from Randomized Trials. Ithaka: USA.
[6]  Dana, S.R. (2013). “The Emergence of the Hybrid Delivery Approach: Utilization of a Six Step Instructional Model for Business Law Curriculum,” Journal of Legal Studies in Business 18:159-190.
[7]  delMas, R., Ooms, A., Garfield, J., and Chance, B. (2006). “Assessing Students’ Statistical Reasoning.”In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. Salvador, Brazil.
[8]  Dowling, C., Godfrey, J.M., and Gyles, N. (2003). “Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students’ learning outcomes?”Accounting Education12(4):373-391.
[9]  Instructional Technology Council (May 2011). 2010 Distance Education Survey Results. Instructional Technology Council: Washington, D.C.
[10]  Keller, J.H., Hassell, J M., Webber, S.A., and Johnson, J.N. (2009). “A comparison of academic performance in traditional and hybrid sections of introductory managerial accounting.”Journal of Accounting Education 27:147-154.
[11]  Khan Academy. Lectures on Microeconomics Principles.
[12]  Lovett, M., Meyer, O., and Thille, C. (May 2008). “The Open Learning Initiative: Measuring the Effectiveness of the OLI Statistics Course in Accelerating Student Learning.”Journal of Interactive Media in Education.
[13]  Priluck, R. (2004). “Web-Assisted Courses for Business Education: An Examination of Two Sections of Principles of Marketing.”Journal of Marketing Education26(2): 161-173.
[14]  Quality Matters Program (2011). Quality Matters Rubric Standards 2011-2013 edition with Assigned Point Values. Maryland Online, Inc.
[15]  Rubin, B. (March 2013). “University Business Models and Online Practices: A Third Way.” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 15(1):17 pages. University of West Georgia.
[16]  Terry, N. (2007). “Assessing Instruction Modes for Master of Business (MBA) Courses.”Journal of Education for Business 82(4): 220-225.
[17]  U.S. Department of Education (December 2008). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006-2007. Washington, D.C.
[18]  Vogel, R. (2011). “Switching Economics Courses from Online Back to the Classroom: Student Performance and Outcomes.” International Journal of Business and Social Science2 (22):79-84.
[19]  Wach, H., Broughton, L., and Powers, S. (Feb 2011). “Blending in the Bronx: The Dimensions of Hybrid Course Development at Bronx Community College,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 15(1):87-94.