Perceptions of Students and Faculty on the Various Delivery Methods of Instruction

Joanne Hood^1, , Yuchun Chen², Lorraine Jacques³ and Dustin Hebert¹

¹Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Leadership, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana, USA

²School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA

³Department of Computer Science, University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida, USA

Cite this paper:
Joanne Hood, Yuchun Chen, Lorraine Jacques and Dustin Hebert. Perceptions of Students and Faculty on the Various Delivery Methods of Instruction. American Journal of Educational Research. 2022; 10(4):245-252. doi: 10.12691/education-10-4-13

Abstract

Previous research has conducted on the sense of community, effectiveness, and learning experience in the face-to-face, hybrid, and online classes. Student preference on any of the delivery methods has not been extensively studied and none was a comparison study of all three delivery methods. This study investigated the perceived course delivery methods of graduate students and faculty at a southeastern university in the United States. Data were collected using a survey modified from Shantakumari and Sajith’s (2015) work. Principal component analysis was used to analyze the survey, yielding three factors (i.e., learning experience, self-efficacy, and ease of use) explaining 73.8% of the variance. Internal reliability was then calculated using Cronbach’s alpha for the entire instrument and for each factor. An overall reliability was above .94 and most of the factors were above .8. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to determine if there was any significant difference in how the participants rated each delivery method. The overall sample showed interaction effects between the students and faculty on learning experience and self-efficacy, but not on ease of use. Students preferred learning experience in face-to-face and hybrid over online courses. Student sample indicated no significant difference in preferred delivery method regarding self-efficacy or ease of use. Faculty preferred face-to-face, followed by hybrid, followed by online delivery in the learning experience factor, and face-to-face over hybrid and online delivery in the self-efficacy and ease of use factors. The findings provide insight that could support decision-making on course offerings, delivery methods, and faculty workload assignments.

Keywords:
delivery methods face-to-face hybrid online virtual learning

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interactions. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
[2]	Ni, A. Y. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199-215.
[3]	Lone Eagle Consulting. (n.d.). Lesson two: Comparing traditional and online classrooms. Retrieved from http://lone-eagles.com/curr2.htm.
[4]	Washington, L. D., Penny, G. R., & Jones, D. (2020). Perceptions of community college students and instructors on traditional and technology-based learning in a hybrid learning environment. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 23, 1-11.
[5]	Mather, M., & Sarkans, A. (2018). Student perceptions of online and face-to-face learning. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 10(2), 61-76.
[6]	Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/adaptability-to-online-learning.pdf.
[7]	Boelens, R., Van Laer, S., De Wever, B., & Elen, J. (2015). Blended learning in adult education: Towards a definition of blended learning (Project Report). Retrieved from Adult Leaners Online! website: http://www.iwt-alo.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/01-Project-report-Blended-learning-in-adult-education-towards-a-definition-of-blended-learning.pdf.
[8]	Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education.
[9]	Li, L., & Yang, S. (2021). Exploring the influence of teacher-student interaction on university students’ self-efficacy in the flipped classroom. Journal of Education and Learning, 10(2), 84-90.
[10]	O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95.
[11]	Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.
[12]	Galway, L. P., & Cameron, E. (2020). Flipping online learning in public health graduate education. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 6(3), 212-221.
[13]	He, K. K. (2014). On the future development of flipped classroom in China: From the nature of flipped classroom. E-education Research, 7, 5-16.
[14]	Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional learning. Kogan Page.
[15]	Akcayir, G., & Akcayir, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334-345.
[16]	Al-Samarraie, H., Shamsuddin, A., & Alzahrani, A. I. (2020). A flipped classroom model in higher education: A review of the evidence across disciplines. Education Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1017-1051.
[17]	Cothrel, J., & Williams, R. L. (1999). On-line communities: Helping them form and grow. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1), 54-60.
[18]	Allen, T. (2000). Creating community in your classroom. The Education Digest, 65(7), 23-27.
[19]	Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. Jossey-Bass.
[20]	Ritter, C., Polnick, B., Fink, II, R., & Oescher, J. (2010). Classroom learning communities in educational leadership: A comparison study of three delivery options. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 96-100.
[21]	Ritter, C., & Polnick, B. (2008). Connections: An essential element of online learning communities. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 3(3), 1-5.
[22]	Rovai, A. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development Journal, 49(4), 39-50.
[23]	Collins, M. P., & Berge, Z. L. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. Proceedings of the FSU/AECT Conference on Distance Learning, Tallahassee, FL.
[24]	Coates, D., Humphreys, B., Kane, J., & Vachris, M. (2004). No significant distance between face-to-face and online instruction: Evidence from principles of economics. Economics of Education Review, 23, 533-546.
[25]	Farinella, J. (2007). Professor and student performance in online vs. traditional introductory finance courses. Journal of Economics and Finance Education, 6, 40-47.
[26]	Gratton-Lavoie, C., & Stanley, D. (2009). Teaching and learning principles of microeconomics online: An empirical assessment. Journal of Economic Education, 40(1), 3-25.
[27]	Trawick, M. W., Lile, S. E., & Howsen, R. M. (2010). Predicting Performance for online students: Is it better to be home alone? Journal of Applied Economics and Policy, 29, 34-46.
[28]	Biner, P. M., Welsh, K. D., Barone, N. M., Summers, M., & Dean, R. S. (1997). The impact of remote-site group size on student satisfaction and relative performance in interactive telecourses. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 23-33.
[29]	Butchey, D., Dandapani, K., & Lawrence, E. (2018). Lessons learned from the MBA program for a successful online MSF program. Journal of Financial Education, 44(1), 127-145.
[30]	Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.
[31]	Milz, S. (2020). Assessing student performance between face-to-face and online course formats in a college-level communications course. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2).
[32]	Melton, B., Graf, H., & Chopak-Foss, J. (2009). Achievement and satisfaction in blended learning versus traditional general health course designs. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1-13.
[33]	Citera, M. (1988). Distributed teamwork: The impact of communication media on influence and decision quality. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(9), 792-800.
[34]	McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. Kogan Pag.
[35]	Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 8(4), 470-481.
[36]	Karayan, S., & Crowe, J. (1997). Student perspectives of electronic discussion groups. THE Journal: Technology Horizons in Education, 24(9), 69-71.
[37]	Smith, L. (2001). Content and delivery: A comparison and contrast of electronic and traditional MBA marking planning courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(1), 35-44.
[38]	Maki, R. H., Make, W. S., Patterson, M., & Whittaker, P. D. (2000). Evaluation of a web-based introductory psychology course: Learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 32, 230-239.
[39]	Lynn, V. A., Bose, A., & Boehmer, S. J. (2010). Librarian instruction-delivery modality preferences for professional continuing education. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 98(1), 57-64.
[40]	Berić-Stojšić, B., Patel, N., Blake, J., & Johnson, D. (2020). Flipped classroom teaching and learning pedagogy in the program planning, implementation, and evaluation graduate course: Students’ experiences. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 6(3), 222-228.
[41]	Shantakumari, N., & Sajith, P. (2015). Blended learning: The student viewpoint. Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research, 5(5), 323-328.
[42]	Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1-13.
[43]	de Winter, J. C. F, Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(2), 147-181.
[44]	Hartshorne, R., Baumgartner, E., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Mouza, C., & Ferdig, R. E. (2020). Special issue editorial: Preservice and inservice professional development during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 137-147.
[45]	Philipsen, B., Tondeur, J., Roblin, N. P., Vanslambrouck, S., & Zhu, C. (2019). Improving teacher professional development for online and blended learning: A systematic meta-aggregative review. Education Tech Research Development, 67, 1145-1174.