Online Finance And Economics Courses: A Comparative Study Of Course Satisfaction And Outcomes Across Learning Models

Abstract

Student learning outcomes and course satisfaction scores are two key considerations when assessing the success of any degree program. This empirical study was based upon more than 3,000 end-of-semester course evaluations collected from 171 courses in the 2010-2011 academic year. The study, conducted at a Midwestern business college, considered the model of learning when examining course satisfaction scores of finance and economics courses. The finance and economics courses at the college all use active learning constructs, even in the online and blended course models. Online, blended and face-to-face courses were studied to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between course satisfaction and any of the models of learning. Surprisingly, online and blended courses had a stronger relationship with high course satisfaction than did face-to-face courses. The average grade point average of each course was also correlated with the three learning models, seeking a relationship between learning outcomes and online, blended and face-to-face courses. There was no significant relationship found among student learning outcomes, as demonstrated by grade point average, and model of learning, indicating that students were able to achieve the same outcomes despite model of learning chosen.

Show me and I’ll remember: association between instructional modality and memory for learning

“…All three modes’ training effectiveness is inconclusive (Bell et al , 2008; Salas and Cannon-Bowers, 2001) and in need for further investigation (Arbaugh, 2014). Although there has not been any significant transfer effects under flipped instruction’s onto learning outcomes (Wiechowski and Washburn, 2014), some studies find a positive effect on learning (Lopes and Soares, 2018) with benefits accruing particularly to low-performing students (Sergis et al , 2018). Purely online instruction has been found to have equivalent transfer effects (Friday et al , 2006; Grandzol, 2004; Kock et al , 2007), but also unfavorable effects (Anstine and Skidmore, 2005).…”

What Might Online Delivery Teach Us About Blended Management Education? Prior Perspectives and Future Directions

“…Although initial studies indicated some less favorable results or no significant differences for blended offerings (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 2003; Bryant, Campbell, & Kerr, 2003; Haytko, 2001; Sauers & Walker, 2004), as learners and instructors have become more experienced with the technological aspects of the delivery format, blended courses have been shown to yield stronger learning motivation (Klein et al, 2006), higher skill development (Chen & Jones, 2007; Kovach, Miley, & Ramos, 2012; Priluck, 2004), and higher course performance (Clouse & Evans, 2003; Gratton-Lavoie & Stanley, 2009; Hamilton & Te, 2010; Keith & Simmers, 2013) relative to purely online and purely classroom-based offerings, even when examining more than one type of blend (Webb et al, 2005). However, more recent studies suggest no difference in learning outcomes, particularly when controlling for issues such as selection bias (Olitsky & Cosgrove, in press; Wiechowski & Washburn, 2014).…”

What makes learners a good fit for hybrid learning? Learning competences as predictors of experience and satisfaction in hybrid learning space

“…Therefore, whether to invest in hybrid learning spaces and implement hybrid learning is critical to institutions' decision makers. In order to estimate whether it will be cost‐effective, being able to predict student satisfaction with hybrid learning before the investment is important since learner satisfaction is a key factor in evaluating the effectiveness of any learning program (Alsadoon, 2018; Wiechowski & Washburn, 2014). A high level of learner satisfaction may reflect that learners are willing to experience the same learning again and thus bring about lower attrition rates and better academic achievement (Chute et al , 1999; Kuo et al , 2014; Lin et al , 2008).…”

“…Decisions on learning program and facility investments should take the cost‐effectiveness into account. In order to understand whether it is cost‐effective, being able to predict student satisfaction before the investments is important since learner satisfaction is a key factor in evaluating the effectiveness of any learning program (Alsadoon, 2018; Wiechowski & Washburn, 2014). A high level of learner satisfaction may reflect that learners are willing to experience the same learning again and thus bring about lower attrition rates and better academic achievement (Chute, Thompson, & Hancock, 1999; Kuo, Walker, Belland, Schroder, & Kuo, 2014; Lin, Lin, & Laffey, 2008), which makes an educational investment (eg, building hybrid learning spaces in institutions) cost‐effective.…”