year 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2020)                   Ann Appl Sport Sci 2020, 8(1): 0-0 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Al Awamleh A. Students Satisfaction on Blended Learning in the School of Sport Sciences. Ann Appl Sport Sci. 2020; 8 (1)
URL: http://aassjournal.com/article-1-803-en.html
Department of Instruction and Supervision, Faculty of Physical Education, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan , aida.awamleh@ju.edu.jo
Abstract:   (342 Views)
Background. Blended learning (BL) requires a virtual learning and online environment (VLE), which makes available a process for establishing learning communities. The Faculty of Physical Education at the University of Jordan designed several courses which incorporate blended learning with contact classes and online components on e-learning models.
Objectives. The present study is to investigate if modes of BL possible influence on students’ perceived achievement goals and satisfaction.
Methods. The research model is tested using a questionnaire survey.  Eighty-three undergraduate sports students participated in the courses (Motor Learning) offered by the University’s Faculty of Physical Education. The participants were divided into two groups.
Results. Indicated that students were satisfied with the blended program and online learning environments, satisfaction was generally high with 83.4%. The results also show that BL rotation type (students rotate between online and traditional content on a fixed schedule) significantly affects learning satisfaction. Moreover, the quality of the teaching received the highest satisfaction level where interaction significantly affected self-study.
Conclusion. The feedback of students who are amongst the critical stakeholders is essential to ensure a successful implementation of bent learning.
Full-Text [PDF 686 kb]   (66 Downloads)    

 
 
APPLICABLE REMARKS

- The results found that students were satisfied with the blended program and online learning environments; satisfaction was generally high.
-Future research might also be conducted to determine students’ satisfaction levels, including theoretical and practical courses.
-It would be beneficial to replicate this study with a larger population sample in other faculties. Although this study endeavored to assess students’ blended learning satisfaction level in the school of Sports Sciences, the results of this study and the research that supports it provide a strong rationale for why including blended learning in sports school or higher education programs is essential.
-Focusing on high-quality lectures, improving the ability to use VLE (e-learning) and creating opportunities for students to develop their self-study could also help sports institutions to maintain high levels of student satisfaction on blended learning.


Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Physical Education Learning
Received: 2019/09/23 | Accepted: 2019/11/10

References
1. Kyei-Blankson L, Ntuli E. Practical Applications in Blended Learning Environments: Experiences in K-20 Education. USA2014. [DOI:10.4018/978-1-4666-4912-5]
2. Galvis ÁH. Supporting decision-making processes on blended learning in higher education: literature and good practices review. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2018;15(1):25. [DOI:10.1186/s41239-018-0106-1]
3. Abou Naaj M, Nachouki M, Ankit A. Evaluating Student Satisfaction with Blended Learning in a Gender-Segregated Environment. J Inf Technol Educ Res. 2012;11:185 - 200. [DOI:10.28945/1692]
4. Garrison DR, Kanuka H. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ. 2004;7(2):95-105. [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001]
5. Wu J-H, Tennyson RD, Hsia T-L. A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Comput Educ. 2010;55(1):155-64. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012]
6. O'Flaherty J, Phillips C. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet High Educ. 2015;25:85-95. [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002]
7. le Roux I, Nagel L. Seeking the best blend for deep learning in a flipped classroom - viewing student perceptions through the Community of Inquiry lens. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2018;15(1). [DOI:10.1186/s41239-018-0098-x]
8. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
9. Horn MB, Staker H. The rise of K-12 blended learning. New York: Innosight institute; 2011.
10. Porter WW, Graham CR, Bodily RG, Sandberg DS. A qualitative analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher education. Internet High Educ. 2016;28:17-27. [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003]
11. Alawamleh A. Blended learning in physical education school Jordan: UJ Newsletter; 2018 [Available from: http://newsletter.ju.edu.jo/Lists/InTheSpotLight/Disp_Form.aspx?ID=10&Issue=2018-08.
12. Johnson L, Becker SA, Cummins M, Estrada V, Freeman A, Hall C. NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition: The New Media Consortium; 2016.
13. US Department of Education OoP, Evaluation,, Policy Development. Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; 2009.
14. Means B, Toyama Y, Murphy R, Bakia M, Jones K. Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: US: Department of Education; 2009.
15. Rienties B, Li N, Marsh V. Modeling and managing student satisfaction: use of student feedback to enhance learning experience. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency; 2015.
16. Owston R, Garrison D, Cook K. Blended e-learning at Canadian universities: issues & practices. In: Bonk C, Graham C, editors. Handbook of Blended Learning: global Perspectives, & Local Designs, Pfeiffer Publishing. San Francisco, CA2006. p. 338-50.
17. Castle SR, McGuire C. An Analysis of Student Self-Assessment of Online, Blended, and Face-to-Face Learning Environments: Implications for Sustainable Education Delivery. Int Educ Stud. 2010;3(3). [DOI:10.5539/ies.v3n3p36]
18. Woods Jr RH. How much communication is enough in online courses?--exploring the relationship between frequency of instructor-initiated personal email and learners' perceptions of and participation in online learning. Int J Instruct Media. 2002;29(4):377.
19. Chen Y-J, Chen P-C. Effects of online interaction on adult students' satisfaction and learning. J Hum Resour Adult Learn. 2007;3(2):78-89.
20. Svanum S, Aigner C. The influences of course effort, mastery and performance goals, grade expectancies, and earned course grades on student ratings of course satisfaction. Br J Educ Psychol. 2011;81(Pt 4):667-79. [DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02011.x] [PMID]
21. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Busin Horiz. 2016;59(4):441-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008]
22. Vaughan N. Student Engagement and Blended Learning: Making the Assessment Connection. Educ Sci. 2014;4(4):247-64. [DOI:10.3390/educsci4040247]
23. Aslanian CB, Clinefelter DL. Online college students 2012: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences: Learning House, Incorporated; 2012.
24. Bralić A, Divjak B. Integrating MOOCs in traditionally taught courses: achieving learning outcomes with blended learning. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2018;15(1):2. [DOI:10.1186/s41239-017-0085-7]
25. Thurmond V, Wambach K. Towards an understanding of interactions in distance education. Online J Nurs Informatics. 2004;8(2):18.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2017 All Rights Reserved | Annals of Applied Sport Science

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb