IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qld/uq2004/494.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the impact of blended learning on student performance

Author

Abstract

This paper assesses quantitatively the impact on student performance of a blended learning experiment within a large undergraduate first year course in statistics for business and economics students. We employ a differences- in-difference econometric approach, which controls for differences in student characteristics and course delivery method, to evaluate the impact of blended learning on student performance. Although students in the course manifest a preference for live lectures over online delivery, our empirical analysis strongly suggests that student performance is not affected (either positively or negatively) by the introduction of blended learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Do Won Kwak & Flavio Menezes & Carl Sherwood, 2013. "Assessing the impact of blended learning on student performance," Discussion Papers Series 494, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    • Handle: RePEc:qld:uq2004:494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.uq.edu.au/files/45858/494.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferber, Marianne A, 1995. "The Study of Economics: A Feminist Critique," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 357-361, May.
    2. Byron W. Brown & Carl E. Liedholm, 2002. "Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Microeconomics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 444-448, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Duncan Watson & Louise Parker, 2016. "The hullaballoo over e-learning? Technology and pluralism in economics," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1159813-115, December.
    2. Do Won Kwak & Carl Sherwood & Kam Ki Tang, 2019. "Class attendance and learning outcome," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 177-203, July.
    3. MUSTAPHA ALMASI & Chang Zhu, 2019. "Studying Teaching Presence In Relation To Learner Performance In Blended Learning Courses In A Tanzanian University: A Mixed Design Approach," Proceedings of Teaching and Education Conferences 9611804, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wen-Chi Liao, 2005. "Outsourcing, Inequality, and Cities," 2005 Meeting Papers 904, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    2. M Paula Cacault & Christian Hildebrand & Jérémy Laurent-Lucchetti & Michele Pellizzari, 2021. "Distance Learning in Higher Education: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment [A Randomized Assessment of Online Learning]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 2322-2372.
    3. Adel Ben Youssef & Ludovic Ragni, 2008. "Uses of Information and Communication Technologies in Europe's Higher Education Institutions: From Digital Divides to Digital Trajectories," Post-Print halshs-00937212, HAL.
    4. Josep Amer-Mestre & Alaitz Ayarza-Astigarraga & Marta C. Lopes, 2024. "E-learning engagement gap during school closures: differences by academic performance," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(3), pages 337-359, January.
    5. David Figlio & Mark Rush & Lu Yin, 2013. "Is It Live or Is It Internet? Experimental Estimates of the Effects of Online Instruction on Student Learning," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(4), pages 763-784.
    6. Verónica Amarante & Marisa Bucheli & Mar�a In�s Moraes & Tatiana P�rez, 2021. "Women in Research in Economics in Uruguay," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, vol. 40(84), pages 763-790.
    7. Solow, John L. & Kirkwood, Nicole, 2002. "Group identity and gender in public goods experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 403-412, August.
    8. Zarrina H. Juraqulova & Jill J. McCluskey & Ron C. Mittelhammer, 2019. "Work–life policies and female faculty representation in US doctoral‐granting economics departments," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 168-196, March.
    9. Li, Yi & Zhang, Wei & Wang, Pengfei, 2021. "Working online or offline: Which is more effective?," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    10. Eric P. Bettinger & Lindsay Fox & Susanna Loeb & Eric S. Taylor, 2017. "Virtual Classrooms: How Online College Courses Affect Student Success," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(9), pages 2855-2875, September.
    11. Ellen Mutari & Deborah Figart & Marilyn Power, 2001. "Implicit Wage Theories in Equal Pay Debates in the United States," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 23-52.
    12. Kent Saunders & Phillip Saunders, 1999. "The influence of instructor gender on learning and instructor ratings," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 27(4), pages 460-473, December.
    13. Coates, Dennis & Humphreys, Brad R. & Kane, John & Vachris, Michelle A., 2004. ""No significant distance" between face-to-face and online instruction: evidence from principles of economics," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 533-546, October.
    14. Duncan Watson & Louise Parker, 2016. "The hullaballoo over e-learning? Technology and pluralism in economics," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1159813-115, December.
    15. Yvonne Durham & Thomas Mckinnon & Craig Schulman, 2007. "Classroom Experiments: Not Just Fun And Games," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 162-178, January.
    16. Cheryl J. Wachenheim, 2009. "Final Exam Scores in Introductory Economics Courses: Effect of Course Delivery Method and Proctoring," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 640-652, September.
    17. Cassandra DiRienzo & Gregory Lilly, 2014. "Online Versus Face-To-Face: Does Delivery Method Matter For Undergraduate Business School Learning?," Business Education and Accreditation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11.
    18. Hardt, David & Nagler, Markus & Rincke, Johannes, 2022. "Can peer mentoring improve online teaching effectiveness? An RCT during the COVID-19 pandemic," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    19. Vasiliki Brinia & Panagiotis Kavaliarakis, 2016. "Educational results from blended learning: Using an educational platform in teaching Economics," International Journal of Learning and Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 6(1), pages 136-148, March.
    20. Mann, John T. & Henneberry, Shida Rastegari, 2012. "Undergraduate Students’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for College Course Attributes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124946, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qld:uq2004:494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SOE IT (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decuqau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.