Investigating the Effects of Different Distance Learning Modalities on Student Academic Performance in Technology Education Programs

Authors

  • Michael G. Calago University of Southeastern Philippines, College of Technology, Philippines; City College of Davao, BTVTEd Department, Davao City, Philippines
  • Emeliza Z. Urgino University of Southeastern Philippines, College of Technology, Philippines; City College of Davao, BTVTEd Department, Davao City, Philippines
  • Wendell J. Del Campo University of Southeastern Philippines, College of Technology, Philippines; University of Southern Mindanao, Mathematics and Statistic Department, Kabacan, Cotabato, Philippines
  • Jonald L. Pimentel University of Southeastern Philippines, College of Technology, Philippines; University of Southern Mindanao, Mathematics and Statistic Department, Kabacan, Cotabato, Philippines

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2024.407

How to Cite

Calago, M., Urgino, E., Del Campo, W., & Pimentel, J. (2024). Investigating the Effects of Different Distance Learning Modalities on Student Academic Performance in Technology Education Programs. Vietnam Journal of Education, 8(3), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2024.407

Abstract

The rise of online distance learning has necessitated investigations into its effectiveness across various educational contexts. This study examines the academic performance of students enrolled in technology education programs across three distinct learning modalities: synchronous, asynchronous, and blended. The study aims to determine if significant differences in academic performance exist among these modalities and how they vary across different assessment types (formative, performance-based, and examination). Forty-five students were equally divided into three groups, each experiencing one of the learning modalities. A non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to analyze the academic performance data. The results indicated significant differences in student performance across the three learning modalities, particularly in formative assessments where blended learning yielded significantly higher scores compared to synchronous and asynchronous modalities. The superior performance in the blended learning modality was consistent across performance-based tests and examinations. Notably, the highest academic performance was observed in the students who engaged in blended learning and were assessed through performance-based tests. Asynchronous learning consistently resulted in lower performance across all assessment types. These findings suggest that blended learning may be a more effective pedagogical approach in technology education, facilitating enhanced academic performance compared to purely synchronous or asynchronous online learning environments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.

Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press.

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., & Huang, B. (2014). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 99-148. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313490727

Brierton, S., Wilson, E., Kistler, M., Flowers, J., & Jones, D. (2016). A comparison of higher order thinking skills demonstrated in synchronous and asynchronous online college discussion posts. Nacta Journal, 60(1), 14-21.

Falloon, G. (2011). Exploring the virtual classroom: What students need to know (and teachers should consider). Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 439-451.

Francescucci, A., & Rohani, L. (2019). Exclusively synchronous online (VIRI) learning: The impact on student performance and engagement outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 60-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475319884801

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.

Graham, C.R. (2006) Blended Learning Systems: Definition, Current Trends, and Future Directions. In: Bonk, C.J. and Graham, C.R., Eds., Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs (pp. 3-21). Pfeiffer Publishing.

Holden, J. T., & Westfall, P. J. (2006). Instructional media selection for distance learning: A learning environment approach. Distance Learning, 3(2), 1-12.

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55.

Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00374-1

International Technology Education Association (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology.

Lim, F. P. (2017). An analysis of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in e-learning. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 143(46), 230-234. https://doi.org/10.14257/astl.2017.143.46

Lin, X., & Gao, L. (2020). Students’ sense of community and perspectives of taking synchronous and asynchronous online courses. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 169-179.

Martin, F., & Parker, M. A. (2014). Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who, and how. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 192-210.

McFarland, D., & Hamilton, D. (2005). Factors affecting student performance and satisfaction: Online versus traditional course delivery. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(2), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2006.11645880

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). Routledge.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.

Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001

Motteram, G. (2001). The role of synchronous communication in fully distance education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1787

National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.

Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v6i1.1870

Picciano, A. G. (2006). Blended learning: Implications for growth and access. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(3), 95-102. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i3.1758

Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2006). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Pearson Education.

Watts, L. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 23-34.

Downloads

Published

2024-12-15

How to Cite

Calago, M., Urgino, E., Del Campo, W., & Pimentel, J. (2024). Investigating the Effects of Different Distance Learning Modalities on Student Academic Performance in Technology Education Programs. Vietnam Journal of Education, 8(3), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2024.407

Issue

Section

Original Articles