Volume 3, Issue 4 (DECEMBER ISSUE 2022)                   johepal 2022, 3(4): 128-133 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Freij I G. Students’ Satisfaction with Blended Learning in Higher Education Context amid an Exacerbating Crisis. johepal 2022; 3 (4) :128-133
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-283-en.html
Abstract:   (256 Views)
  • Blended learning (BL) is promoted at the University of Sciences and Arts in Lebanon (USAL) as an ad hoc model with neither feasible planning nor adequate infrastructure facility. It was rather promoted as a cost-cutting solution that might endure the sustainability of the university’s enrolment and operating abilities, precluding the meltdown of the students’ financial capabilities by saving the extortionate transportation expenses.
  • There is a considerable satisfaction of USAL’s students with blended learning; which in turn reveals a bright image of USAL’s skillful maneuver throughout a two-semester academic year bringing blended learning into action in no time.
  • Low satisfaction rates are evident with the interactivity and engagement dimension in general and with the opportunities given to the students to collaborate, reflect their viewpoints, access information in particular, the offering of immediate feedback and the interactivity’s influence over leading to positive learning outcomes.
  • USAL instructors should pursue a professional development program to ensure a considerable proficiency in designing feasible digital tools and thus engaging the undergraduates and keeping up an interactive atmosphere within that will effectively promote the delivery of the online sessions.
Full-Text [PDF 1457 kb]   (87 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2022/09/7 | Accepted: 2022/11/25 | Published: 2022/12/31

1. Armellini, A., Antunes, V. T., & Howe, R. (2021). Student perspectives on learning experiences in a higher education active blended learning context. TechTrends, 65, 433-443. [DOI]
2. Bollinger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61-67. [Article]
3. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
4. Mbati, L., & Minnaar, A. (2015). Guidelines towards the facilitation of interactive online learning programmes in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 272-287. [DOI]
5. Cuesta Medina, L. (2018). Blended learning: Deficits and prospects in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 42-56. [DOI]
6. Rienties, B., Li, N., & Marsh, V. (2015). Modeling and managing student satisfaction: Use of student feedback to enhance learning experience. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency. [Article]
7. Roff, K. A. (2018). Student satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction in blended learning environments. Frontiers in Education Technology, 1(2), 149-163. [DOI]
8. Wang, J. (2019). Application of Blending Learning Based on Network Learning Space in Teaching Design of Digital Art. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(03), pp. 177–189. [DOI]
9. Woods, R. H. (2002). How much communication is enough in online courses? Exploring the relationship between frequency of instructor-initiated personal email and learner’s perceptions of and participation in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 377- 394. [Article]

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Higher Education Policy And Leadership Studies

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb