대한공업교육학회지

Korean Institute of Industrial Educations (대한공업교육학회)
권호 표지

The Comparison of the learning achievement and learning satisfaction Between in the Blended Class and Online Class and Offline Class

블렌디드 학습, 온라인 학습, 오프라인 학습의 학업성취도와 학습만족도 비교

  • Published : 2005.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Many problems with the offline class, which is the traditional education type in corporations or universities, were indicated and people hoped that e-learning, which is web-based instruction, would solve these problems. However, e-learning also has weak points in that it should be self-paced and media-based in many ways. Therefore, when considering the good and weak points of offline classes and e-learning, blended learning seems to be necessary. Until now, blended learning has usually been used in corporations, and there have been almost no studies on the effectiveness or management of blended learning in universities. Thus, in this study, I would like to design blended classes, manage them at the level of university classes, and verify the effectiveness of blended classes, by comparing academic achievement, student participation, and student satisfaction. The subject students who signed up for Computer & Technology at C University in 2005 were divided into three study groups: offline class, online class, and blended class. The offline class was taught using the traditional class teaching method. For the online class and the blended class, multimedia contents were developed and a different LMS was used. The results of 13 weeks of teaching are as follows. For the academic achievement in the offline, online and blended classes, there was no statistically significant difference (f=2.387, p=.096). But when comparing the average achievement, the average of the blended class was higher than that of the other classes, so that it can be said that the blended class has positive effects on academic achievement. Second, when comparing the learners' participation in the online class and the blended class, the total posts were 85 and 138 respectively, which shows a considerable difference. The hit counts for each post in the online class and the blended class are 10 and 20, respectively. Moreover, the login counts for subjects are 3 in the online class and 4 in the blended class. In the questionnaire for the students' academic satisfaction in the online class and the blended class, all of the 15 items showed higher satisfaction in the blended class. Considering all these results, if adequate media are properly combined, the blended class is better than either the pure online class or the pure offline class.

Keywords

References

  1. 권혁일. (2000). 적응적 웹기반 수업의 학습효과성 고찰,교육공학 연구,16(4), 24-25
  2. 김도헌. (2003a). Blended Learning 출현배경과 개념적 의미. 산업교육. 2003년 3월호, 54-57
  3. 김도헌. (2003b). Blended Learning 전략적 접근법. 산업교육. 2003년 4월호,60-63
  4. 김도헌. (2005). Blended Learning형 리더십 훈련 평가 연구 [Online] http://www.hrd.go.kr /ehrd/index200406/200406_04_01.htm
  5. 김미량. (2000) 웹활용 수업사례에 기초한 사이버 교수-학습 운영의 기본 전략 및 향후 과제,교육공학 연구,16(1),48-58
  6. 김영환. (1998) 가상체제 구성과 성공적 운영을 위한 탐색. 재3차 교육공학회 연찬회(이화여자대학교) 자료집,96-106
  7. 김성일. (1998) 가상대학의 당면과제 및 운영방안. 정보과학회지,16(10),16-25
  8. 김영환. (2000). 웹 교육이란 무엇인가 한양대학교 사이버학습센터
  9. 김현수,최형림,김선희. (1999). 가상교육의 핵심 성공 요인,교육공학 연구, 15(1),241-264
  10. 백수희. (2003). 디자인교육에서 혼합형 수업 (Blended learning) 적용 가능성, 디자인학 연구. 54(16). 38-43
  11. 오인경. (2004). Blended Learning의 실시 현황 분석: 국내 현황 및 외국과의 비교. 기업 교육연구,6(1),41-62
  12. 유영만. (2001). 학습객체(Learning Object) 개념에 비추어 본 지식경영과 e-learning의 통합 가능성과 한계. 교육공학 연구, 17(2), 53-89
  13. 유영만. (2002). '학습'없는 e-Learning과 '지식'없는 지식경영:지식생태학적 관점에서 다시 생각해 보는 e-Learning과 지식경영의 본질과 지향성. 교육정보방송연구, 8(3), 45-83
  14. 조은순. (2002). 최상의 학습성과를 위한 e-러닝 의 활용 서울 : 한국능률협회
  15. 임정훈 외. (2004). 블렌디드 러닝을 활용한 커뮤니티 기반 교수학습 모형 개발, 한국교육 공학회 춘계학술대회
  16. 황대준. (1998). 가상대학의 현황과 발전방향. 정보과학회지, 16(10),6-15
  17. Allen, E., Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. MA: The Sloan Foundation
  18. Allison Rossett, Felicia Douglis, Rebecca V.Frazee. (2003). Strategies for Building Blended Learning
  19. Bersin. (2004). The Blended Learning Book. Best Practices, Proven Methodologies, and Lessons Learned, Wiley/Pfeiffer
  20. Caladine, R. (2002). Definitions, Glossaries and Terms. [Online], http://ncode.uow.edu. au/info/definitions.html
  21. Collins, B & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learining in a digital world experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page
  22. Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: e-Learning. 3(3), 54-56
  23. The eLearning Guild. (2003). The Blended Learning Best Practice Survey. The eLearning Guild
  24. Hoffmann, J. (2000). Managing the synchronous blend [Online]
  25. Masie, E. (2002). Blended learning: The magic is in th mix. In A, Rossett (ed). The ASTD e-Learning handbook; best practices, strategies, and case studies for an emerging field, 58-63. New York: McGraw-Hill
  26. Mantyla, K. (2001). Blended eleaming. VA: ASTD
  27. Rosenberg, M. J. (2000). E-learning: strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York : McGraw Hill. 유영만 역(2001b) e-learning 디지털 시대의 지식 확산 전략. 물푸레
  28. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended Learning systems: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-234
  29. Sighn, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A White paper: Achieving success with blended learning [Online] www.centra.com/download/whitepapers/blendedlearning.pdf
  30. Smith, J. (2001), An old friend gets a new name [Online] http://www.gwsae.org/ExecutiveUpdate/2001/March/blended.htm
  31. Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended Learning Models, [Online] http://www.leamingcircuits.org/2002/aug2002/valiathan.html