Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment

Journal of Information Technology Education:Research

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 185-200

  Naaj, Mahmoud Abou ^a   Nachouki, Mirna ^a   Ankit, Ahmed ^a  

^a AJMAN UNIVERSITY   (United Arab Emirates)

Author keywords

Blended learning; Gender segregation; Student satisfaction; Videoconferencing

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION COMPUTING; VIDEO CONFERENCING;

BLENDED LEARNING; FACE-TO-FACE EDUCATION; GENDER SEGREGATION; LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; LEARNING MODALITIES; LEVEL OF SATISFACTION; MULTIPLE DELIVERIES; STUDENT SATISFACTION;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84877670205     PISSN: 15479714     EISSN: 15393585     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.28945/1692     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Adas, D., & Abu Shmais, W. (2011). Students' perceptions towards blended learning environment using the OCC. An-Najah University Journal for Research - Humanities, 25(6), 1681-1710.
2. Albalawi, M. S. (2007). Critical factors related to the implementation of web-based instruction by higher-education faculty at three universities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unpublished dissertation of Doctor of Education. The University of West Florida.
3. Alebaikan, R., (2010). Perceptions of blended learning in Saudi universities. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Exeter.
4. Alebaikan, R. & Troudi, S. (2010). Online discussion in blended courses at Saudi universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 507-514.
5. Al-Fadhli, S. (2008). Students' perceptions of e-learning in Arab society: Kuwait University as a case study. E-Learning and Digital Media, 5(4), 418-428. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2008.5.4.418
6. Al-Yousef, N. (2009). The status of women in the Arab gulf countries. Retrieved from http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/NourahAlyousef/Publications/Women%20in%20the%20Gulf.pdf
7. American Psychological Association. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC.
8. Askar, P., Altun, A., & Ilgaz, H. (2008). Learner satisfaction on blended learning. E-leader conference, Krakow, Poland
9. Belanger, F., & Jordan, D. H. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: Technologies, tools and techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea Publishing Group.
10. Biner, P. M., Dean, R. S., & Mellinger, A. E. (1994). Factors underlying distance learner satisfaction with televised college-level courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 60-71.
11. Bollinger, D. U.. & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online cours-es. International Journal of E-Learning, (3)1, 61-67.
12. Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and socio-cultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Booker, Q. E., & Rebman, C. E. (2005). E-student retention: Factors affecting customer loyalty for online program success. Issues in Information Systems, 1(1), 183-189.
14. Bower, B. L., & Kamata, A. (2000). Factors influencing student satisfaction with online courses. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(3), 52-56.
15. Carmel, A., & Gold, S. (2007). The effects of course delivery modality on student satisfaction and retention and GPA in on-site vs. hybrid courses. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 8(2: Article 11), 127-135.
16. Chong, S. M. (1998). Models of asynchronous computer conferencing for collaborative learning in large college classes. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered tech-nologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 157-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Chute, A. G., Thompson, M. M., & Hancock, B. W. (1999). The McGraw-Hill handbook of distance learn-ing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18. Culture of United Arab Emirates. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.everyculture.com/To-Z/United-Arab-Emirates.html#b
19. DeBourgh, G. A. (1999). Technology is the tool, teaching is the task: Student satisfaction in distance learn-ing. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Confer-ence 1999, San Antonio, TX, (pp. 131-137).
20. DeBourgh, G. A. (2003). Predictors of student satisfaction in distance-delivered graduate nursing courses: What matters most? Journal of Professional Nursing, 19(3), 149-163.
21. Donahue, T. L., & Wong, E. H. (1997). Achievement motivation and college satisfaction in traditional and nontraditional students. Education, 118, 237-243.
22. Finaly-Neumann, E. (1994). Course work characteristics and students' satisfaction with instructions. Jour-nal of Instructional Psychology, 21(2), 14-19.
23. Finn, A. & Bucceri, M. (2006). A case study approach to blended learning. Los Angeles: Centra Software.
24. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
25. Giannousi, M., Vernadakis, N., Derri, V., Michalopoulos, M., & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2009). Students' satisfaction from blended learning instruction. Proceedings of the TCC Worldwide Online Conference, 1, 61-68.
26. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham, The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer.
27. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, R. H. (1998). Faculty development programmes in distance education in American higher education. In C. Latchem & F. Lockwood (Eds.), Staff development in open and flex-ible learning (pp. 105-114). New York: Routledge.
28. Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2003). Students' distress with a Web-based distance education course: An ethno-graphic study of participants' experiences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 4(1), 1-30.
29. Hiltz, S. R. (1993). Correlates of learning in a virtual classroom. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 71-98.
30. Holley, D., & Dobson, C. (2008). Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning environment: The use of contemporary learning spaces. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(2), 139-150.
31. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. P. (2000). Foundation of behavioral research (4th ed.). Forth Worth, TX: Har-court.
32. Kim, W. (2007). Towards a definition and methodology for blended learning. Workshop on Blended Learning, 2007, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, Proceedings, 1-8.
33. Knox, W. E., Lindsay, P., & Kolb, M. N. (1993). Does college make a difference? Long-term changes in activities and attitudes. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
34. Koohang, A. (2004). Students' perceptions toward the use of the digital library in weekly web-based dis-tance learning assignments portion of a hybrid programme. British Journal of Educational Technol-ogy, 35, 617-626.
35. 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). Retrieved from http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
36. Ministry of Higher education, Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA) annual report, (2011). Available at https://www.caa.ae/caa/images/AnnualReport2011.pdf
37. Mood, T. A. (1995). Distance education: An annotated bibliography. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
38. Moore, J. C. (2009). A synthesis of Sloan-C effective practices: December 2009. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(4), 84-94. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/freedownloads
39. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub-lishing Company.
40. Samover, L.A., Porter, R. E., & McDaniel, E. R. (2009). Communication between cultures. Boston: Wadsworth.
41. Sen, T. (2011). Application of blended and traditional class teaching approach in higher education and the student learning experience. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 2(2), 107-109.
42. Sinclaire, J. (2011). Student satisfaction with online learning: Lessons from organizational behavior. Re-search in Higher Education Journal, 11, 1-18.
43. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51-54.
44. Sloan. (2011). The 5 Pillars of Quality Online Education. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/5pillars
45. Smart, K. L., & Cappel, J. J. (2006). Students' perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201-219. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol5/v5p201-219Smart54.pdf
46. Smith, P. L., & Dillon, C. L. (1999). Comparing distance learning and classroom learning: Conceptual con-siderations. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 6-23.
47. So, H. J. (2009). Is blended learning a viable option in public health education? A case study of student satisfaction with a blended graduate course. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 15(1), 59- 66.
48. Sweeney, J. C., & Ingram, D. (2001). A comparison of traditional and web--based tutorials in marketing education: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 55-62.
49. Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional learning. London: Kogan Page.
50. Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K., Connors, H. R., & Frey, B. B. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a web-based environment by controlling for student characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 169-189.
51. UAE Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.mfnca.gov.ae/?lang=en&m=options&act=content_detail&content_id=438
52. UAE, The official Website. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.uaeinteract.com/education/
53. Weber, A. S. (2010). Web-based learning in Qatar and the GCC states. Center for International and Re-gional Studies, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar, Occasional Paper No. 5.
54. Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimensions of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34-39.
55. Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (1997). 'How'm I doing?' Problems with student ratings of instructors and courses. Change, 29, 12-23.
56. Women in the United Arab Emirates: A Portrait of Progress. (2008). Retrieved from http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session3/AE/UPR_UAE_ANNEX3_E.pdf
57. Women in the UAE. (2012). UAE Vice President, Prime minister, and Ruler of Dubai His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Website. Retrieved from http://www.sheikhmohammed.ae/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7d3c4c8631cb4110VgnVCM100000b0140a0aRCRD
58. Wu, H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers and Education, 55, 155-164.
59. Žuvic-Butorac, M., Roncevic, N., Nemcanin, D., & Nebic, Z. (2011). Blended e-learning in higher educa-tion: Research on students' perspective. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8, 409-429.