Smart utilization of tertiary instructional modes

Computers and Education

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1036-1053

  Hamilton, John ^a   Tee, Singwhat ^a  

^a JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Evaluation methodologies; Improving classroom teaching; Instruction modes; Interactive learning environments; Pedagogical issues

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES; FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING; FIRST YEAR; IMPROVING CLASSROOM TEACHING; IN-LINE; INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT; LEARNING EFFECTS; LEARNING EXPERIENCES; LEARNING QUALITY; LEARNING SKILLS; PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING;

RESEARCH; SCHOOL BUILDINGS; STUDENTS;

TEACHING;

EID: 77349104834     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.009     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Allen M., Bourhis J., Burrell N., and Mabry E. Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classroom in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education 16 2 (2002) 83-97
2. Alves H., and Raposo M. Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 18 5 (2007) 572-588
3. Anderson J., and Gerbing D. Structural equation modeling in practice. A review of the two step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 3 (1988) 411-423
4. Arbaugh J. Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education 24 1 (2000) 32-54
5. Arbaugh J., and Duray R. Technological and structural characteristic, student learning and satisfaction with web-based courses: An exploratory study of two on-line MBA programs. Journal of Management Learning 33 3 (2002) 331-347
6. Arbaugh J., and Rau B. A study of disciplinary, structural and behavioural effects on course outcomes in on-line MBA courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 5 1 (2007) 65-95
7. Baugher D., Varanelli A., and Weisbord E. Student hits in an internet-supported course: How can instructors use them and what do they mean?. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 1 2 (2003) 159-179
8. Beattie K., and James R. Flexible coursework delivery to Australian postgraduates: How effective is the teaching and learning. Higher Education 33 2 (1997) 177-194
9. Bentler P. EQS structural equation program manual (1995), Multivariate Software, Encio, CA
10. Bergozzi R., and Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science Journal 16 1 (1988) 74-94
11. Biggs J. Teaching for quality learning at university. 2nd ed. (2003), Open University Press, Berkshire, UK
12. Black A. Student perceptions of teaching methods: An analysis of how perceptions can impact upon the learning process. Journal of Professional Legal Education 14 2 (1996) 203-225
13. Blankson J., and Kyei-Blankson L. Nontraditional students' perception of a blended course: Integrating synchronous online discussion and face-to-face instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning 19 3 (2008) 421-438
14. Bliuc A., Goodyear P., and Ellis R. Research focus and methodological choices in studies into student' experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education 10 1 (2007) 231-244
15. Blunch N. Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and AMOS (2008), SAGE Pub, London, UK
16. Bonk C., and Graham C. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local design (2005), Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA
17. Boyatzis R., and Kolb D. From learning style to learning skills: The executive skills profile. Journal of Management Psychology 10 5 (1995) 3-17
18. Brew L. The role of student feedback in evaluating and revising a blended learning course. The Internet and Higher Education 11 2 (2008) 98-105
19. Bryant K., Campbell J., and Kerr D. Impact of web based flexible learning on academic performance in information systems. Journal of Information Systems Education 14 1 (2003) 41-50
20. Byrne B. Structural equation modeling with AMOS (2001), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
21. Caladine R. Teaching for flexible learning: Learning to apply the technology (MOLTA) (1999), Monmouthshire, GSSE
22. Chickering A., Gamson Z., and Barsi L. Principles of good practice in undergraduate education (1987), American Association of Higher Education, Education Commission of the State and Johnston Foundation, Milwaukee, WI
23. Chiu C., Hsu M., Sun, Lin, and Sun P. Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers and Education 45 4 (2005) 399-416
24. Collis B., and Moonen J. Flexible learning: Its not just about the distance. Flexible learning in the digital world (2001), Kogan Page, London, UK
25. Collis B., and Moonen J. Flexible learning in a digital world. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning 17 3 (2002) 217-230
26. Cunningham E. A practical guild to structural equation modeling using AMOS (2008), Streams Statsline, Melbourne
27. Cunningham E., Holmes-Smith P., and Coote L. Structural equation modeling: From the fundamentals to advanced topics (2006), Streams Statsline, Melbourne
28. Cybinski P., and Selvananthan S. Learning experience and learning effectiveness in undergraduate statistics: Modeling performance in traditional and flexible learning environment. Decision Science Journal of Innovative Education 3 2 (2005) 251-271
29. Dabbagh N., and Bannan-Ritland B. Online learning: Concepts strategies and application (2005), Pearson, Merrill, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
30. Dart B., Burnett P., Purdie N., Boulton-Lewis G., Cambell J., and Smith D. Students' conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. Journal of Educational Research 93 4 (2000) 262-270
31. Davis R., and Wong D. Conceptualizing and measuring the optimal experience of the eLearning environment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 5 1 (2007) 97-126
32. Delialioglu O., and Yildirim Z. Student's perceptions on effective dimensions of interactive learning in a blended learning environment. Education Technology 10 2 (2007) 133-146
33. Delialioglu O., and Yildirim Z. Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers and Education 51 1 (2008) 474-483
34. Dill D., and Soo M. Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education 49 4 (2005) 495-533
35. Douglas J., McClelland R., and Davies J. The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education 16 1 (2008) 19-35
36. Dowling C., Godfrey J., and Gyles N. Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students' learning outcomes?. Accounting Education 12 4 (2003) 373-391
37. Drew P., and Watkins D. Affective variables, learning approaches and academic achievement: A causal modelling investigation with Hong Kong tertiary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology 68 2 (1998) 173-188
38. Duke C. Learning outcomes: Comparing student perceptions of skill level and importance. Journal of Marketing Education 24 3 (2002) 203-217
39. EL-Deghaidy H., and Nouby A. Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme. Computers and Education 51 3 (2008) 988-1006
40. Felder R., and Spurlin J. Application, reliability and validity of index of learning styles. International Journal of Engineering Education 21 1 (2005) 103-112
41. Finch B. Operations now: Supply chain profitability and performance (2008), McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY
42. Flood B., and Wilson R. An exploration of the learning approaches of prospective professional accountants in Ireland. Accounting Forum 32 3 (2008) 225-239
43. Gamliel E., and Davidovitz L. Online versus traditional teaching evaluation: Mode can matter. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30 6 (2005) 581-589
44. Gefen D., Straub D., and Boudreau M. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4 7 (2000) 2-78
45. Georgouli K., Skalkidis I., and Guerreiro P. A framework for adopting LMS to introduce e-learning in a traditional course. Education Technology and Society 11 2 (2008) 227-240
46. Gibson C., and Cohen S. Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (2003), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
47. Hair J., Anderson R., Tatham R., and Black W. Multivariate data analysis, with readings. 5th ed. (1998), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
48. Hair J., Black W., Babin B., and Anderson R. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (2010), Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
49. Hall C., Bolen L., and Gupton R. Predictive validity of the study process questionnaire for undergraduate students. College Student Journal 29 2 (1995) 234-239
50. Hamilton J. Building and managing modern e-services. In: Zhang Q. (Ed). E-supply chain technologies and management Vol. 3 (2007), Idea Group Inc, Arkansas 80-100
51. Hamilton J. Service value networks: Into practice. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 16 4 (2007) 414-423
52. Hamilton, J., & Tee, S. (2008). Systems alignment: Linking tertiary institution learning modes and graduate attributes to business enhancement. In: 8th International conference of electronic business, Waikoloa, Hawaii, 29 September-2 October, National Chengchi University. pp. 146-154.
53. Hamilton J., and Tee S. Building the tertiary institution enhancement measurement model. E Business Review 9 1 (2009) 113-117
54. Hill J. Flexible learning environments: Leveraging the affordances of flexible delivery and flexible learning. Innovative Higher Education 31 3 (2006) 187-197
55. Holsapple C., and Lee-Post A. Defining assessing and promoting e-learning: And information systems perspective. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 4 1 (2006) 67-85
56. Hughes G. Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teaching in Higher Education 12 3 (2007) 349-363
57. Jamelske E. Measuring the impact of a university first-year experience program on student GPA and retention. Higher Education 57 3 (2009) 373-391
58. Johnson R., Hornik S., and Salas E. An empirical examination of factors contributing to creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66 5 (2008) 356-369
59. Johnson D., and Johnson R. Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. In: Tindale R., Heath L., Edwards J., Posavac E., Bryant F., Suzre Balcazar Y., et al. (Eds). Theory and research on small groups (1998), Plenum, New York, NY 9-36
60. Johnson D., and Johnson R. Learning together and alone. 3rd ed. (1999), Allyn and Bacon, Sydney, Australia
61. Johnson S., Suriya C., Yoon S., Berrett J., and La Fleur J. Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams. Computers and Education 39 4 (2002) 379-393
62. Joreskog K., and Yang F. Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny-Judd model with interaction effects. In: Marcoulides G.A., and Schumaker R.E. (Eds). Advanced structural equation modeling techniques (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 57-88
63. Kline R. Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. (2005), The Guilford Press, New York, NY
64. Kretovics M. Assessing the MBA what do our students learn. The Journal of Management 18 2 (1999) 125-136
65. Lee Y. An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Information Review 30 5 (2006) 517-541
66. Levy Y. A case study of management skills comparison in online and on-campus MBA programs. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education 1 3 (2005) 1-20
67. Loehin J. Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path and structural analysis. 2nd ed. (1992), Laurence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
68. Lowry D., Molloy S., and McGlennon S. Future skill needs: Projection and employers' view. National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER): Report to Australian Department of Education. Employment and Workplace Relation 1-35 (2008)
69. Marks R., Sibley S., and Arbaugh J. A structure equation model of predictions for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education 29 4 (2005) 531-563
70. McCarthy J., and Anderson L. Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education 24 4 (2000) 279-294
71. McFarland D., and Hamilton D. Factors affecting student performance and satisfaction: Online versus traditional course delivery. Journal of Computer Information Systems 46 2 (2006) 25-32
72. Michinov N., and Michinov E. Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction affect, and behaviour over time. Computers and Education 50 4 (2008) 1540-1557
73. Miller J., and Groccia J. Are four heads better than one? A comparison of cooperative and traditional teaching formats in an introductory biology course. Innovative Higher Education 21 4 (1997) 253-273
74. Moore M. Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distant Education 3 2 (1989) 1-6
75. Moore M. Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distant Education 5 1 (1991) 1-6
76. Moore M., and Kearsley G. Distance education: A systems view. 2nd ed. (2004), Wadsworth Publishing, Boston, MA
77. Munck I. Model building in comparative education. Applications of LISREL method to cross-national survey (1979), Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, Sweden
78. Navarro P., and Shoemaker J. Performance and perception of distance learners in cyberspace. The American Journal of Distance Education 14 2 (2000) 15-35
79. Nemanich L., Banks M., and Vera D. Enhancing knowledge transfer in classroom versus online settings: The interplay among instructor, student content and context. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 7 1 (2009) 123-148
80. Nikolova I., and Collins B. Flexible learning and design instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology 29 1 (1998) 59-72
81. Novak J. Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in school and corporation (1998), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, New Jersey pp. 24-25
82. Nunan T., George R., and McCausland H. Rethinking the ways in which teaching and learning are supported: The Flexible Learning Centre at the University of South Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22 1 (2000) 85-98
83. Nunnally J. Psychometric theory (1978), McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
84. Park, H. (2005). Design and development of a mobile learning management system adaptive to the learning styles of students. In Third IEEE international workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education. Tokushima, Japan. pp. 39-43.
85. Reisetter M., Lapointe L., and Korcuska J. The impact of altered realities: Implications of online delivery for learners' integrations, expectations, and learning skills. International Journal on E-Learning 6 1 (2007) 55-80
86. Reisslein J., Seeling P., and Reisslein M. Integrating emerging topics through online team design in hybrid communication networks course. Internet and Higher Education 8 2 (2005) 145-165
87. Scouller K., Bonanno H., Smith L., and Krass I. Student experience and tertiary expectations: Factors predicting academic literacy amongst first-year pharmacy students. Studies in Higher Education 33 2 (2009) 167-178
88. Sendag S., and Odabasi F. Effects of an on-line problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers and Education 53 1 (2009) 132-141
89. Silva D., and McFadden K. Combining operations management and information systems curricula: Assessing alumni preparation for the workforce. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 3 2 (2005) 307-321
90. Simmering M., Posey C., and Piccoli G. Computer self-efficacy and motivation to learn in a self directed online course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 9 1 (2009) 99-121
91. Smith P. Technology, student learning preferences, and the design of flexible learning programs. Instructional Science 29 3 (2001) 237-254
92. Standage M., Duda J., and Ntoumanis N. A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of Education Psychology 95 1 (2005) 97-110
93. Sun P., Tsai R., Finger G., Chen Y., and Yeh D. What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learners' satisfaction. Computers and Education 50 4 (2008) 1183-1202
94. Taylor J. Flexible delivery: The globalisations of lifelong learning. Indian Journal of Open Learning 7 1 (1998) 55-65
95. Theroux, P. (2004). Comparing traditional teaching and student centered, collaborative learning. Enhance Learning with Technology. . Accessed 10.04.09.
96. Trigwell K., and Prosser M. Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education 22 3 (1991) 251-266
97. Trigwell K., and Prosser M. Towards and understanding of individual acts of teaching and learning. Higher Education Research and Development 16 2 (1997) 241-252
98. Tumen S., Shulruf B., and Hattie J. Student pathways at the university: Patterns and predictors of completion. Studies in Higher Education 33 3 (2008) 233-252
99. Wade W., Hodgkinson K., Smith A., and Arfield J. Flexible learning in higher education (1994), Kogan Page, London, UK
100. Wang Y., and Braman J. Extending the classroom through Second Life. Journal of Information Systems Education 20 2 (2009) 235-247
101. Wong N., and Watkins D. A longitudinal study of the psychosocial environment and learning approaches in the Hong Kong classroom. Journal of Educational Research 91 4 (1998) 247-254
102. Yudko E., Hirokawa R., and Chi R. Attitudes beliefs and attendance in a hybrid course. Computers and Education 50 4 (2008) 1217-1227
103. Zhang L. University students' learning approached in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs's 3P model. Journal of Psychology 134 1 (2000) 37-55