Comparing Student Performance and Satisfaction in Face-to-Face and Hybrid Formats for a Finance Course

Patricia R. Robertson^1,

¹Lecturer of Finance Kennesaw State University Coles College of Business, Department of Economics, Finance and Quantitative Kennesaw

Cite this paper:
Patricia R. Robertson. Comparing Student Performance and Satisfaction in Face-to-Face and Hybrid Formats for a Finance Course. American Journal of Educational Research. 2014; 2(2):73-77. doi: 10.12691/education-2-2-2

Abstract

In a study conducted at a large, public university, the author assessed the impact of course delivery method (face-to-face versus hybrid formats) on student performance and satisfaction. The study was based on the concurrent instruction of a senior-level finance course over two semesters. Student performance was based on the percent of students achieving a grade of A, B or C in the course (as opposed to D, F or W/WF) and the scores on the individual gradable assignments. The study shows no significant difference between hybrid and face-to-face delivery in the mean score of student performance. In addition, there was no significant difference in student satisfaction, which was measured based on the official university student survey. The study demonstrates (in contrast to other studies) that student achievement and satisfaction do not significantly differ with hybrid format delivery of the course. Implications of the study’s findings are discussed.

Keywords:
hybrid learning hybrid format hybrid course blended 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]	Black, G.,"A Comparison of Traditional, Online and Hybrid Methods of Course Delivery,” Journal of Business Administration Online, 1 (1). Spring 2002.
[2]	Butts, F., “Evaluation of Hybrid Online Instruction in Sport Management,” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12 (2). 2009.
[3]	Ernst, J., “A Comparison of Traditional and Hybrid Online Instructional Presentation in Communication Technology,” Journal of Technology Education, 19 (2). Spring 2008.
[4]	Mossavar-Rahmani, F. and Larson-Daugherty, C., “Supporting the Hybrid Learning Model: A New Proposition,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3 (1). 67-78. March 2007.
[5]	Ranganathan, S., Negash, S., and Wilcox, M., “Hybrid Learning: Balancing Face-To-Face and Online Class Sessions,” Proceeding of the 2007 Southern Association for Information Systems Conference, 178-182. 2007.
[6]	Reasons, S.,Valadares, K., Slavkin, M., “Questioning The Hybrid Model: Student Outcomes In Different Course Formats,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9 (1). 83-94. March 2005.
[7]	Rivera, J. and Rice, M., “A Comparison of Student Outcomes & Satisfaction Between Traditional & Web Based Course Offerings,” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5 (3). 2002.
[8]	Scida, E. and Saury, R., “Hybrid Courses and Their Impact on Student and Classroom Performance: A Case Study at the University of Virginia,” Calico Journal, 23 (3). 517-531. 2006.
[9]	Utts, J., Sommer, B., Acredolo, C., Maher, M., and Matthews, H., “A Study Comparing Traditional and Hybrid Internet-Based Instruction in Introductory Statistics Classes,” Journal of Statistics Education, 11 (3). 2003.
[10]	Ward, B., “The Best of Both Worlds: A Hybrid Statistics Course,” Journal of Statistics Education, 12 (3). 2004.