Blended Learning Satisfaction: Uncovering the Gender Differences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7903/ijecs.1774Keywords:
blended learning satisfaction, gender, internet self-efficacy, interaction, self-regulationAbstract
This study evaluated whether the impact of interactivity, self-regulation and internet self-efficacy on learning satisfaction differ due to gender effect in a blended learning environment. Multigroup analysis was used to assess the gender differences for the predictors of learning satisfaction, which are learner–content interaction, learner–instructor interaction, learner–learner interaction, self-regulated learning and internet self-efficacy. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from undergraduate students and 742 valid responses were obtained. The results show that learner–instructor interaction, learner–learner interaction, self-regulated learning and internet self-efficacy were predictors for learning satisfaction for the whole sample. Gender effect were present for the relationship between internet self-efficacy and learning satisfaction but not for the relationships among learner–content interaction, learner–instructor interaction, learner–learner interaction, self-regulation and learning satisfaction. Awareness regarding the importance of learner-content interaction needs to be prioritized to create a comparative advantage in the learning.References
H. M. S. Ahmed, Hybrid e-learning acceptance model: Learner perceptions. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(2), 313-346, 2010.
Y. C. Kuo, B. R. Belland, K. E. E. Schroder and A. E. Walker, K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments. Distance Education, 35(3), 360-381, 2014.
C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
J. H. Wu, R. D. Tennyson and T. L. Hsia, A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155-164, 2010.
J. K. Lee and W. K. Lee, The relationship of e-learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-learning environmental quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 32-47, 2008.
M. A. Naaj, M. Nachouki and A. Ankit, Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11(1), 185-200, 2012.
P. Moskal, C. Dziuban and J. Hartman, Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15-23, 2013.
U. Ehlers, Quality in e-learning. The learner as a key quality assurance category. European Journal of Vocational Training, 29, 3-15, 2004.
M. Kerres and C. D. Witt, A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 101-113, 2003.
S. Van Laer and J. Elen, In search of attributes that support self-regulation in blended learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 1-60, 2016.
P. Luarn, H. C. Kuo, Y. P. Chiu and S. C. Chang, Social support on Facebook: The influence of tie strength and gender differences. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 6(1), 37-50, 2015.
J. M. Lee and J. Y. Rha, Ambivalence toward personalized technology and intention to use location-based mobile commerce: The moderating role of gender. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 8(2), 197-218, 2017.
F. González-Gómez, J. Guardiola, Ó. Martín Rodríguez and M. Á. Montero Alonso, Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 283-290, 2012.
P. E. Ramírez-Correa, J. Arenas-Gaitán and F. J. Rondán-Cataluña, Gender and acceptance of e-learning: A multi-group analysis based on a structural equation model among college students in Chile and Spain. PloS one, 10(10), e0140460, 2015.
A. Wallace and N. Panteli, Bringing relevance to eLearning – A gender perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 1-13, 2016.
O. Deperlioglu and U. Kose, The effectiveness and experiences of blended learning approaches to computer programming education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 21(2), 328-342, 2013.
A. Hirumi, The design and sequencing of online and blended learning interactions: A framework for grounded design. Canadian Learning Journal, 16(2), 21-25, 2011.
D. Holley and C. Dobson, Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning environment: The use of contemporary learning spaces. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(2), 139-150, 2008.
K. Schweizer, M. Paechter and B. Weidenmann, Blended learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task performance. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 211-224, 2003.
D. R. Garrison and H. Kanuka, Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105, 2004.
M. G. Moore, Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7, 1989.
C. Chou, H. Peng and C. Y. Chang, The technical framework of interactive functions for course-management systems: Students’ perceptions, uses, and evaluations. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1004-1017, 2010.
M. Cheng and A. H. K. Yuen, Student continuance of learning management system use: A longitudinal exploration. Computers & Education, 120, 241-253, 2018.
C. H. Lin, B. Zheng and Y. Zhang, Interactions and learning outcomes in online language courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2016.
Y. M. Cheng, Exploring the roles of interaction and flow in explaining nurses' e-learning acceptance. Nurse Education Today, 33(1), 73-80, 2013.
M. Paechter and B. Maier, Online or face-to-face? Students' experiences and preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292-297, 2010.
D. U. Bolliger, F. A. Inan and O. Wasilik, Development and validation of the online instructor satisfaction measure (OISM). Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 183-195, 2014.
Y. C. Kuo, A. E. Walker, K. E. E. Schroder and B. R. Belland, Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35-50, 2014.
S. Sukanlaya, N. Cameron and J. Kieren, Increasing learners’ satisfaction/intention to adopt more e‐learning. Education + Training, 55(1), 83-105, 2013.
B. J. Zimmerman, A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of educational psychology, 81(3), 329, 1989.
A. Padilla-Meléndez, A. R. del Aguila-Obra and A. Garrido-Moreno, Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers & Education, 63, 306-317, 2013.
C. Dziuban, P. Moskal and J. Hartman, Higher education, blended learning and the generations: Knowledge is power-no more. In J. C. M. J. Bourne (Ed.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities, Sloan Center for Online Education (pp. 85-100). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 2005.
M. Graff, Individual Differences in Sense of Classroom Community in a Blended Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 203-210, 2003.
Y. Gulbahar and R. O. Madran, Communication and collaboration, satisfaction, equity, and autonomy in blended learning environments: A case from Turkey. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2), n2, 2009.
M. Cuadrado-García, M. E. Ruiz-Molina and J. D. Montoro-Pons, Are there gender differences in e-learning use and assessment? Evidence from an interuniversity online project in Europe. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 367-371, 2010.
J. M. Kayany and P. Yelsma, Displacement Effects of Online Media in the Socio-Technical Contexts of Households. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 215-229, 2000.
V. Venkatesh and M. G. Morris, Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139, 2000.
A. Bolívar-Cruz and D. Verano-Tacoronte, Self-assessment of the oral presentation competence: Effects of gender and student’s performance. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 94-101, 2018.
J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle and M. Sarstedt, A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2013.
H. N. Folz, T. L. Sprunger, A. H. Sheehan, J. Aranda, K. M. Bozymski, D. C. Ramsey and J. D. Gonzalvo, Factors associated with mentor satisfaction among teaching and learning curriculum program participants. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(4), 427-432, 2018.
S. Li, S. Yamaguchi and J. I. Takada, The influence of interactive learning materials on self-regulated learning and learning satisfaction of primary school teachers in Mongolia. Sustainability, 10, 1093, 2018.
D. Shen, M. H. Cho, C.L. Tsai and R. Marra, Unpacking online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 10-17, 2013.
R. J.-c. Chu, How family support and Internet self-efficacy influence the effects of e-learning among higher aged adults – Analyses of gender and age differences. Computers & Education, 55(1), 255-264, 2010.
S. C. Chuang, F. M. Lin and C. C. Tsai, An exploration of the relationship between internet self-efficacy and sources of internet self-efficacy among Taiwanese university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 147-155, 2015.
M. J. Tsai and C. C. Tsai, Junior high school students’ Internet usage and self-efficacy: A re-examination of the gender gap. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1182-1192, 2010.
A. H. Huffman, J. Whetten and W. H. Huffman, Using technology in higher education: The influence of gender roles on technology self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1779-1786, 2013.
S. H. Hsu, Developing an index for online customer satisfaction: Adaptation of American Customer Satisfaction Index. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(4), 3033-3042, 2008.
E. D. Cohen, Gendered styles of student-faculty interaction among college students. Social Science Research, 75, 117-129, 2018.
V. Balakrishnan and C. L. Gan, Students’ learning styles and their effects on the use of social media technology for learning. Telematics and Informatics, 33(3), 808-821, 2016.
