Francescucci, Anthony, & Foster, Mary. (2013). The VIRI (Virtual, Interactive, Real-Time, Instructor-Led) Classroom: The Impact of Blended Synchronous Online Courses on Student Performance, Engagement, and Satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(3), 78-91.
Francescucci and Foster (2013) set out to compare the impact of a virtual, synchronous, blended learning component with a traditional face-to-face classroom. The researchers identified two sections of Marketing 100, which were taught by the same instructor, during the same semester, at the same time of day, with a random sampling of students assigned to each section. Courses shared all of the same learning activities and course materials. One class met in the traditional, face-to-face manner all semester; the other class met face-to-face the first week, then alternated each week afterward with a synchronous class meeting at the scheduled time. Students took a pre-course survey and a post-course survey evaluating perceptions of student engagement and performance. Mid-term and final grades for the students were not significantly different. The main areas which yielded statistically-differ results were in the perception of the importance of participation and attention, the post-test survey indicating significant results in the area of interest, as well. On a variety of perceptual measures, students indicated positive responses about the VIRI (virtual, interactive, real-time, instructor-led) aspects of the course, in comparison to the weeks of strictly face-to-face learning at a rate ranging from 2:1 to 3:1 in favor of the advantages of VIRI. Approximately 8-20% of students felt that the VIRI components added stress, was difficult to connect, was less convenient, or posed problems in tracking the course schedule.
Methodology presented in this study was virtually perfect. Every effort was made to provide consistency between the control group and the treatment group — meeting at the same university, the same time of day, the same instructor, the same materials, a blind and random assignment to the conditions, and identical routines on the “odd” weeks of the course. The only variable presented was the expectation that students should log in and participate through online access every other week, doing the same assignments, following the same instructions, and having the same lecture. This clean methodology yields a strong level of reliability in the data, as well as validity that results could not be attributed to other factors, such as course selection preferences, day vs. evening student variations, shift of emphasis between different instructors, or more successful online learning methods being used. In the analysis, researchers and readers could clearly and confidently say that, all things being equal, blended learning increases student satisfaction. I concur with the researchers in their conclusion, pondering the identical study being repeated with one entirely face-to-face course and one entirely online course.
No study of behavior can be absolutely perfect in a laboratory sense of the control group and the treatment group, but this one comes as close as possible. Variables which influence a learner’s experience in the online environment are many, including history with technology, access to functional hardware, availability of reliable, high speed internet, familiarity with software, and the physical environment in which one works for ergonomic qualities. Face-to-face work with students also has a plethora of variables, not the least of which include whether the child had a good night’s sleep and an adequate breakfast or whether he/she believes the teacher likes him/her, though these factors are seldom addressed in studies of the performance of school children. More studies like this one would be eminently helpful in the field of educational technology to put the myths to rest.
All things being equal, blended learning increases student satisfaction and engagement.
EmpowerED 