Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 37–47
© Al-Awamleh A., 2019
UDC: 
159.9

Students’ satisfaction with blended learning programmes in the Faculty of Physical Education

Al-Awamleh A. 1 (Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)
1 The University of Jordan
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 1092
Abstract: 

Introduction. Blended learning requires a virtual learning environment (VLE), which contributes to establishing learning communities. The Faculty of Physical Education at the University of Jordan has designed a number of courses which incorporate blended learning with contact classes and online components on the e-learning platform. The objective of the present study is to investigate if modes of blended learning affect students’ perceived achievement goals and satisfaction.
Materials and Methods. The research model has been tested using a questionnaire survey. The sample consisted of 83 undergraduate sport students pursuing the courses in Motor Learning offered by the Faculty of Physical Education.
Results. It was identified that students were satisfied with blended programmes and online learning environments (83 %). The findings have shown that Blended Learning rotation type (students rotate between online and traditional content within the fixed schedule) significantly affects learning satisfaction. Moreover, teaching quality received the highest satisfaction level when interaction significantly affected self-study.
Conclusions. The feedback of students who are amongst the key stakeholders is essential to ensure a successful implementation of blended learning.

Keywords: 

Blended Learning; Students’ Satisfaction; Motor Learning

URL WoS/RSCI: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/rsci/full-record/RSCI:41271739

Prominence Percentile SciVal: 92.699 Blended Learning | Learning Management System | Moodle

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85074651924&origin=...

Students’ satisfaction with blended learning programmes in the Faculty of Physical Education

For citation:
Al-Awamleh A. Students’ satisfaction with blended learning programmes in the Faculty of Physical Education. Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 37–47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1905.03
References: 
  1. Aslanian C. B., Clinefelter D. L. Online college students 2012: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: The Learning House, Inc, 2012. URL: https://www.learninghouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Online-College-Students-2012.pdf
  2. Castle S. R., McGuire C. An analysis of student self-assessment of online, blended, and face-to-face learning environments: Implications for sustainable education delivery. International Education Studies, 2010, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 36–40. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v3n3p36    
  3. Garrison R., Kanuka H. Blended learning: Uncovering it transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2004, vol. 7 (2), pp. 95–105. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
  4. Horn M. B., Staker H., Hernandez A., Hassel B., Ableidinger J. The rise of K–12 blended learning. Innosight Institute, 2011. URL: http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-rise-of-K-12-blended-learning.pdf
  5. Johnson L., Adams Becker S., Estrada V., Freeman A. NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium, 2014. URL: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Johnson%2C%20L.%2C%20Becker%2C%20S.A.%2C%20Estrada%2C%20V.%2C%20Freeman%2C%20A.%3A%20NMC%20Horizon%20Report%3A%20Higher%20Education%20Edition%2C%20New%20Media%20Consortium%3A%20Austin%2C%20Texas%20%282014%29
  6. Kyei-Blankson L., Ntuli E. (Eds.) Practical Applications in Blended Learning Environments: Experiences in K-20 Education. USA: IGI, 2014. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4912-5
  7. 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, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 2009. URL: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Evaluation%20of%20evidence-based%20practices%20in%20online%20learning%3A%20A%20meta-analysis%20and%20review%20of%20online%20learning%20studies&author=B.%20Means&author=Y.%20Toyama&author=R.%20Murphy&author=M.%20Bakia&author=K.%20Jones&publication_year=2009
  8. 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, D.C., 2010. URL: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
  9. Naaj M. A., Nachouki M., Ankit A. Evaluating Student Satisfaction with Blended Learning in a Gender-Segregated Environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 2012, vol. 11, pp. 185–199. URL: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Naaj%2C%20M.%20A.%2 C%20Nachouki%2C%20M.%2C%20%26%20Ankit%2C%20A.%20%282012%29.%20Evaluating%20student%20satisfaction%20with%20blended%20learning%20in%20a%20gender-segregated%20environment.%20Journal%20of%20Information%20Technology%20Education%3A%20Research%2C%2011.%20ISSN-1547-9714
  10. Owston R. D., Garrison D. R., Cook K. Blended e-learning at Canadian universities: issues & practices. In: Bonk C. J., Graham C. R. (Eds.) Handbook of Blended Learning: global Perspectives, & Local Designs, Pfeiffer Publishing, San Francisco, CA, 2006, pp. 338–350.
  11. Pavlis-Korres M. Key Factors for maximizing the effectiveness of blended e-learning: The outcome of the internal evaluation of a distance education program for adult learning in Greece. In: Kyei-Blankson L., Ntuli E. (Eds.) Practical Applications in Blended Learning Environments: Experiences in K-20 Education, 2014, pp. 410–437. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4912-5.ch026
  12. Rienties B., Li N., Marsh V. Modeling and managing student satisfaction: Use of student feedback to enhance learning experience. Quality Assurance Agency, Gloucester, 2015. URL: http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/46057
  13. 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. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2011, vol. 81 (4), pp. 667–679. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02011.x  
  14. Thurmond V, Wambach K. Towards an understanding of interactions in distance education. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 2004, vol. 8 (2). URL: http://ojni.org/8_2/interactions.htm
  15. Vaughan N. Student engagement and blended learning: Making the assessment connection. Education Sciences, 2014, vol. 4 (4), pp. 247–264. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci4040247
  16. Wu J. H., Tennyson R. D., Hsia T. L. A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers and Education, 2010, vol. 55 (1), pp. 155–164 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012  
Date of the publication 31.10.2019