A comparative study on the effectiveness of blended learning, physical learning, and online learning in functional skills training among higher vocational education

Zhongyan Hu; Yun Fah Chang; Ming Kang Ho; Zhongyan Hu; Yun Fah Chang; Ming Kang Ho

doi:10.3934/steme.2024015

STEM Education

2024, Volume 4, Issue 3: 247-262. doi: 10.3934/steme.2024015

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

A comparative study on the effectiveness of blended learning, physical learning, and online learning in functional skills training among higher vocational education

1.
School of Management and Marketing, Taylor's University, Malaysia
2.
President's Office, Yan 'an University, China
3.
School of Accounting and Finance, Taylor's University, Malaysia
4.
Graduate School of Business, Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation, Malaysia

Academic Editor: Tasadduq Imam

Received: 02 March 2024 Revised: 12 June 2024 Accepted: 26 June 2024 Published: 02 July 2024

The widespread dissemination of the COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a transition from traditional, in-person pedagogy to online methods within higher vocational education. The inherent limitations of online learning have become progressively conspicuous. Given its pivotal role amidst the pandemic, numerous institutions have endeavored to integrate technology with traditional classroom pedagogies. Consequently, blended learning has emerged as a focal point within vocational education, garnering notable attention and interest. The question arises: which learning method proves most effective for vocational skills development? This study endeavored to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of various learning methods for vocational skills training. Specifically, employing a quantitative approach, the study conducted a comprehensive questionnaire survey of graduates of higher vocational institutions in China. Participants have undergone training via exclusively physical, thoroughly online, and blended learning formats, respectively. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of these three methods as perceived by higher vocational graduates. In addition, the study aimed to analyze the personal and pedagogical factors that influence the effectiveness of these learning methods. The collected data underwent analysis utilizing SPSS software. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, correlation analyses, and subsequent least significant difference (LSD) post-hoc analyses were employed to investigate the correlations between demographic variables and factors related to teachers and educational resources across the three learning methods. These findings indicate that blended learning is the most efficient approach, with a notable preference among vocational graduates. Physical learning demonstrated superior effectiveness, particularly in functional skills training. In divergence, online learning ranked the lowest among graduates' preference, efficiency, and efficacy in functional skills training. Among the demographic factors examined, gender and duration of graduation exhibited notable variances across the effectiveness of different learning methods. However, there are no significant differences in the area of origin, economic region, type of higher vocational institution, and majors. These insights provide valuable guidance for higher vocational institutions in selecting the most suitable learning methods for enhancing functional skills training.
- blended learning,
- physical learning,
- online learning,
- effectiveness,
- functional skills training,
- higher vocational education
Citation: Zhongyan Hu, Yun Fah Chang, Ming Kang Ho. A comparative study on the effectiveness of blended learning, physical learning, and online learning in functional skills training among higher vocational education[J]. STEM Education, 2024, 4(3): 247-262. doi: 10.3934/steme.2024015

Related Papers:

Abstract

The widespread dissemination of the COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a transition from traditional, in-person pedagogy to online methods within higher vocational education. The inherent limitations of online learning have become progressively conspicuous. Given its pivotal role amidst the pandemic, numerous institutions have endeavored to integrate technology with traditional classroom pedagogies. Consequently, blended learning has emerged as a focal point within vocational education, garnering notable attention and interest. The question arises: which learning method proves most effective for vocational skills development? This study endeavored to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of various learning methods for vocational skills training. Specifically, employing a quantitative approach, the study conducted a comprehensive questionnaire survey of graduates of higher vocational institutions in China. Participants have undergone training via exclusively physical, thoroughly online, and blended learning formats, respectively. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of these three methods as perceived by higher vocational graduates. In addition, the study aimed to analyze the personal and pedagogical factors that influence the effectiveness of these learning methods. The collected data underwent analysis utilizing SPSS software. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, correlation analyses, and subsequent least significant difference (LSD) post-hoc analyses were employed to investigate the correlations between demographic variables and factors related to teachers and educational resources across the three learning methods. These findings indicate that blended learning is the most efficient approach, with a notable preference among vocational graduates. Physical learning demonstrated superior effectiveness, particularly in functional skills training. In divergence, online learning ranked the lowest among graduates' preference, efficiency, and efficacy in functional skills training. Among the demographic factors examined, gender and duration of graduation exhibited notable variances across the effectiveness of different learning methods. However, there are no significant differences in the area of origin, economic region, type of higher vocational institution, and majors. These insights provide valuable guidance for higher vocational institutions in selecting the most suitable learning methods for enhancing functional skills training.

References

[1]	Aldowah, H., Rehman, S. U., Ghazal, S. and Umar, I. N., Internet of Things in higher education: a study on future learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2017,892(1): 012017. IOP Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/892/1/012017
[2]	Lockee, B. B., Online education in the post-COVID era. Nature Electronics, 2021, 4(1): 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0 doi: 10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0
[3]	Alghamdi, A., Karpinski, A. C., Lepp, A. and Barkley, J., Online and traditional classroom multitasking and academic performance: Moderated mediation with self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 2020,102: 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.018 doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.018
[4]	Chen, X. G. and Wang, D. M., The development course and main characteristics of MOOC. Modern educational technology, 2013, 5–10.
[5]	Driscoll, M., Web-Based Training Creating e-Learning Experiences, Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer: San Francis-co, 2002.
[6]	Kim, E. C. and Kellough, R. D., A Resource Guide for Secondary School Teaching, Planning for Competence, 1974.
[7]	Mantyla, K., Blending e-learning: the power is in the mix, American Society for Training and Development, 2001.
[8]	Pappano, L., Learning to think outside the box: Creativity becomes an academic discipline, The New York Times, 2014.
[9]	Spring, K. and Graham, C., Thematic patterns in international blended learning literature, research, practices, and terminology, Online Learning Journal. 2017, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.998 doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i4.998
[10]	Horn, M. B. and Staker, H., The rise of K-12 blended learning. Innosight institute, 2011, 5(1): 1–17.
[11]	Keefe, T. J., Using technology to enhance a course: The importance of interaction. Educause Quarterly, 2003, 26(1): 24–34.
[12]	Campbell, M., Gibson, W., Hall, A., Richards, D. and Callery, P., Online vs. face-to-face discussion in a web-based research methods course for postgraduate nursing students: A quasi-experimental study. International journal of nursing studies, 2008, 45(5): 750–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.12.011 doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.12.011
[13]	Şentürk, C., Effects of the blended learning model on preservice teachers' academic achievements and twenty-first century skills. Education and Information Technologies, 2021, 26(1): 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10340-y doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10340-y
[14]	Riffell, S. and Sibley, D., Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: An evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers & education, 2005, 44(3): 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.01.005 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.01.005
[15]	López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C. and Rodríguez-Ariza, L., Blended learning in higher education: Students' perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & education, 2011, 56(3): 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023
[16]	Tang, M. and Byrne, R., Regular versus online versus blended: A qualitative description of the advantages of the electronic modes and a quantitative evaluation. International Journal on Elearning, 2007, 6(2): 257–266. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
[17]	Adedoyin, O. B. and Soykan, E., Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive learning environments, 2023, 31(2): 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180 doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
[18]	Amir, L. R., Tanti, I., Maharani, D. A., Wimardhani, Y. S., Julia, V., Sulijaya, B., et al., Student perspective of classroom and distance learning during COVID-19 pandemic in the undergraduate dental study program Universitas Indonesia. BMC medical education, 2020, 20(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02312-0 doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02312-0
[19]	Annamalai, N., Online learning during COVID-19 Pandemic. Are Malaysian high school students ready? Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 2021, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.3.06 doi: 10.47836/pjssh.29.3.06
[20]	Cox, D. and Prestridge, S., Understanding fully online teaching in vocational education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2020, 15(1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-020-00138-4 doi: 10.1186/s41039-020-00138-4
[21]	Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M. and Jones, K., Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies, 2009.
[22]	Allen, I. E. and Seaman, J., Grade Level: Tracking Online Education in the United States, Babson Survey Research Group. Babson College, 231 Forest Street, Babson Park, MA 02457, 2015.
[23]	Hannafin, M., Hill, J. R., Oliver, K., Glazer, E. and Sharma, P., Cognitive and learning factors in web-based distance learning environments. Handbook of distance education, 2003,245–260.
[24]	Lack, K. A., Current status of research on online learning in postsecondary education, 2013.
[25]	Griffin, T. and Mihelic, M., Online delivery of VET qualifications: current use and outcomes. National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), 2019.
[26]	Atchley, W., Wingenbach, G. and Akers, C., Comparison of course completion and student performance through online and traditional courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2013, 14(4): 104–116. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1461 doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1461
[27]	Neuhauser, C., Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. The American Journal of distance education, 2002, 16(2): 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602-4 doi: 10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602-4
[28]	Lewin, T., College of future could become one, come all, The New York Times, 2012, 19.
[29]	LaFrance, J. and Blizzard, J., Student perceptions of digital storytelling as a learning-tool for educational leaders. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 2013, 8(2).
[30]	Chang, C. C., Shu, K. M., Liang, C., Tseng, J. S. and Hsu, Y. S., Is blended e-learning as measured by an achievement test and self-assessment better than traditional classroom learning for vocational high school students. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2014, 15(2): 213–231. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1708 doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1708
[31]	Alonso, F., Manrique, D. and Viñes, J. M., A moderate constructivist e-learning instructional model evaluated on computer specialists. Computers & Education, 2009, 53(1): 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.002
[32]	Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R. and Baki, M., The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers college record, 2013,115(3): 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500307 doi: 10.1177/016146811311500307
[33]	Yigzaw, M., Tebekaw, Y., Kim, Y. M., Kols, A., Ayalew, F. and Eyassu, G., Comparing the effectiveness of a blended learning approach with a conventional learning approach for basic emergency obstetric and newborn care training in Ethiopia. Midwifery, 2019, 78: 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2019.07.014 doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2019.07.014
[34]	Rovai, A. P. and Jordan, H. M., Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2004, 5(2): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v5i2.192 doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v5i2.192
[35]	Ashby, J., Sadera, W. A. and McNary, S. W., Comparing student success between developmental math courses offered online, blended, and face-to-face. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2011, 10(3).
[36]	Araeipour, M. R., Comparison of Student Success in Traditional and Distance Delivery Platforms, ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, 2013.
[37]	Buchanan, T. C. and Palmer, E., Role immersion in a history course: Online versus face-to-face in Reacting to the Past. Computers & Education, 2017,108: 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.008 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.008
[38]	Ganesh, G., Paswan, A. and Sun, Q., Are face-to-face classes more effective than online classes? An empirical examination. Marketing Education Review, 2015, 25(2): 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2015.1029851 doi: 10.1080/10528008.2015.1029851
[39]	Gundlach, E., Richards, K. A. R., Nelson, D. and Levesque-Bristol, C., A comparison of student attitudes, statistical reasoning, performance, and perceptions for web-augmented traditional, fully online, and flipped sections of a statistical literacy class. Journal of Statistics Education, 2015, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2015.11889723 doi: 10.1080/10691898.2015.11889723
[40]	Keramidas, C. G., Are undergraduate students ready for online learning? A comparison of online and face-to-face sections of a course. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 2012, 31(4): 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870512031004 doi: 10.1177/8756870512031004
[41]	Barak, M., Hussein-Farraj, R. and Dori, Y. J., On-campus or online: examining self-regulation and cognitive transfer skills in different learning settings. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2016, 13(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0035-9 doi: 10.1186/s41239-016-0035-9
[42]	Blau, G., Drennan Jr, R. B., Karnik, S. and Kapanjie, D., Do technological and course‐related variables impact undergraduates' perceived favorability and willingness to recommend online/hybrid business courses? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2017, 15(4): 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12139 doi: 10.1111/dsji.12139
[43]	Brown, J. L., Online learning: A comparison of web-based and land-based courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2012, 13(1): 39.
[44]	Galy, E., Downey, C. and Johnson, J., The effect of using e-learning tools in online and campus-based classrooms on student performance. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 2011, 10(1): 209–230.
[45]	Chen, G., Jones, I. and Xu, D., Preferences for online and face-to-face learning: A study of engineering students in China, Education Sciences, 2018, 8(4), 221.
[46]	López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C. and Rodríguez-Ariza, L., Blended learning in higher education: Students' perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & education, 2011, 56(3): 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023
[47]	Ebenuwa-Okoh, E. E., Influence of age, financial status, and gender on academic performance among undergraduates. Journal of Psychology, 2010, 1(2): 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/09764224.2010.11885451 doi: 10.1080/09764224.2010.11885451
[48]	Adas, D. and Shmais, W. A., Students' perceptions towards blended learning environment using the OCC. An-Najah University Journal for Research-B (Humanities), 2011, 25(6): 1681–1710. https://doi.org/10.35552/0247-025-006-009 doi: 10.35552/0247-025-006-009
[49]	Abou Naaj, M., Nachouki, M. and Ankit, A., Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 2012, 11(1): 185–200. https://doi.org/10.28945/1692 doi: 10.28945/1692
[50]	Gill, J. and Johnson, P., Research Methods for Managers, 2010.
[51]	Farmer, H., Career Motivation Achievement Planning: C-MAP. A User's Manual, 1981.
[52]	Holland, J. L., Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments, Psychological Assessment Resources, 1997.
[53]	Lent, R. W., Ireland, G. W., Penn, L. T., Morris, T. R. and Sappington, R., Sources of self-efficacy and outcome expectations for career exploration and decision-making: A test of the social cognitive model of career self-management. Journal of vocational behavior, 2017, 99: 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.01.002
[54]	Gable, R. K. and Wolf, M. B., Instrument development in the affective domain: Measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings, Vol. 36. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
[55]	Hair, J. F., Multivariate data analysis, 2009.
[56]	Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. and Xu X., Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 2012,157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412 doi: 10.2307/41410412
[57]	Nyachae, J. N., The effect of social presence on students' perceived learning and satisfaction in online courses, West Virginia University, 2011. https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.4761 doi: 10.33915/etd.4761
[58]	Abou Naaj, M., Nachouki, M. and Ankit, A., Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 2012, 11(1), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.28945/1692 doi: 10.28945/1692
[59]	Archambault, L., Kennedy, K., Shelton, C., Dalal, M., McAllister, L. and Huyett, S., Incremental progress: Re-examining field experiences in K-12 online learning contexts in the United States. Journal of Online Learning Research, 2016, 2(3), 303–326.
[60]	Dangwal, K. L., Blended learning: An innovative approach. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2017, 5(1): 129–136. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050116 doi: 10.13189/ujer.2017.050116
[61]	Soresi, S., Nota, L., Ferrari, L. and Ginevra, M. C., Parental influences on youth's career construction. Handbook of career development: International perspectives, 2014,149–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9460-7_9 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9460-7_9
[62]	National Center for Education Statistics (n. d.). Nontraditional Undergraduates: Definitions and Data. Available from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578e.asp
[63]	Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D. and Hackett, G., Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development, 2002, 4(1): 255–311.
[64]	Pajares, F. and Schunk, D. H., Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. Perception, 2001, 11(2): 239–266.
[65]	Moore, M. G., Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education: New perspectives, New York: Routledge, 1993, 19–24.

Author's biography Hu Zhongyan is pursuing a Ph.D in Business at Taylor's University in Malaysia. She works in the President's Office of Yan'an University in China. Her research area is on talents training in higher vocational institutions. She is also interested in literature. She has published 8 academic papers and over 50 ancient and modern poems in periodicals, magazines, and newspapers; Dr. Chang Yun Fah is an associate professor of Statistics at Taylor's University, Malaysia. He was appointed as an Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Foreign Languages, Dezhou University, China in 2020, and as a Senior Research Associate at University Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia in 2022. He has published over 70 research articles, book chapters, books, and proceedings. His research interests include statistical modeling, data science, financial mathematics, image analysis, medical analysis, social statistics, and vocational education. Currently, he is an elected member of the International Statistical Institute and a panel assessor appointed by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency. He serves as a member of the editorial board and as a reviewer for various local and international journals; Dr. Ho Ming Kang teaches mainly modules in Actuarial Sciences such as applied statistical methods, life contingency, and survival models. His research activities are mainly on data analysis, such as regression modeling, time series forecasting, survival analysis, missing data analysis, and machine learning, with a growing interest in FinTech and artificial intelligence (AI). He has published in various scholarly journals including MATEMATIKA (Malaysian Journal of Industrial and Applied Mathematics), the International Journal of Computer Application, and the International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences. In addition, he also serves as a reviewer of international journals and international conferences

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)