You are here:

Student Satisfaction with Blended and Online Courses Based on Personality Type
ARTICLE

français, langue française/French Niveau de satisfaction des étudiants dans les cours hybrides et en ligne basé sur le type de personnalité

,

CJLT Volume 39, Number 1, ISSN 1499-6677 e-ISSN 1499-6677 Publisher: Canadian Network for Innovation in Education

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate differences in perceived student satisfaction in blended and online learning environments based on personality type. A total of 72 graduate students enrolled in blended and online courses at two research universities in the United States completed an abbreviated online version of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI®) and an online student satisfaction questionnaire. Overall, results indicate participants were satisfied with courses delivered in both environments. Analyses revealed several significant differences in perceived student satisfaction with certain elements in blended and online courses based on personality type.

français, langue française/French:

Cette étude a pour but d'examiner si la satisfaction des étudiants à l’égard d’environnements d'apprentissage hybride et en ligne varie en fonction du type de personnalité. 72 étudiants de cycle supérieur inscrits dans des cours hybrides et en ligne de deux universités de recherche américaines ont rempli en ligne une version abrégée de l'indicateur de types psychologiques de MyersBriggs (MBTI ®) ainsi qu’un questionnaire mesurant le niveau de satisfaction des étudiants. Dans l'ensemble, les résultats indiquent que les participants étaient satisfaits des cours enseignés dans ces deux environnements. Les analyses ont révélé que la satisfaction des étudiants à l’égard de certains éléments des cours hybrides et en ligne varie en fonction du type de personnalité.

Citation

Bolliger, D. & Erichsen, E. (2013). Student Satisfaction with Blended and Online Courses Based on Personality Type. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 39(1),. Canadian Network for Innovation in Education. Retrieved March 21, 2023 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abrahmov, S.L., & Ronen, M. (2008). Double blending: Online theory with on-campus practice in photography instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(1), 314.
  2. Ausburn, L.J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327-337.
  3. Bastiaens, T.J., & Martens, R.L. (2000). Conditions for web-based learning with real events. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 1-31).
  4. Bleed, R. (2001). A hybrid campus for the new millennium. EDUCAUSE Review, 36(1), 17-24.
  5. Curran, C. (2008). Online learning and the university. In W.J. Bramble & S. Panda (Eds.), Economics of distance and online learning: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 26-51).
  6. Daughenbaugh, R., Daughenbaugh, L., Surry, D., & Islam, M. (2002). Personality type and online versus in-class course satisfaction: A study of student personality types showed surprising preferences for the medium of instruction. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 25(3), 71-72.
  7. Dawson, B.G., & Guy, R.F. (1994). Personality type and grade performance in a TV-assisted course. Journal of Psychological Type, 29, 38-42.
  8. Ellis, A.E. (2003). Personality type and participation in networked learning environments. Education Media International, 40(1/2), 101-114.
  9. Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.
  10. Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 5364.
  11. Graff, M. (2003). Individual differences in sense of classroom community in a blended learning environment. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2/3), 203-210.
  12. Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D.A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 89-95. Doi:10.1016/J.iheduc.2009.11.006
  13. Holley, D., & Dobson, C. (2008). Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning environment: The use of contemporary learning spaces. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(2), 139-150.
  14. Irani, T., Telg, R., Scherler, C., & Harrington, M. (2003). Personality type and its relationship to distance education students’ course perceptions and performance. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(4), 445-453.
  15. Jung, C.G. (1923). Psychological types or the psychology of individuation (H.G. Baynes, Trans.). New York: Harcourt.
  16. Lawrence, G. (1993). People types& Tiger stripes (3rd ed.). Ocala, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.
  17. Lee, J., & Lee, Y. (2006). Personality types and learners’ interaction in web-base threaded discussion. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), 83-94.
  18. Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers& Education, 51, 864-873.
  19. Lin, Y., Lin, G., & Laffey, J.M. (2008). Building a social and motivational framework for understanding satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(1), 1-27.
  20. Moore, J.C. (2002). Elements of quality: The Sloan-CTM framework. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
  21. Moore, M.G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Student Satisfaction with Blended and Online Courses Based on Personality Type 21 Myers& Briggs Foundation. (N.D.). MBTI basics. Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L., & Hammer, A.L. (2003). MBTI® manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP.
  22. Niemiec, M., & Otte, G. (2009). An administrator’s guide to the whys and hows of blended learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 19-30. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/v13n1_3niemiec_0.pdf Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999, April). What’s the difference: A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/s-z/WhatDifference.pdf
  23. Quenk, N.L. (2009). Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  24. Sahin, I., & Shelley, M. (2008). Considering students’ perceptions: The distance education student satisfaction model. Educational Technology& Society, 11(3), 216-223.
  25. Sloan Consortium. (2002). Quick guide. Pillar reference manual. Needham, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-.org/publications/books/dprm_sm.pdf Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  26. Sun, P., Tsai, R.J., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful eLearning? An empirical investigation of critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers& Education, 50, 1183-1202.
  27. Tieger, P.D., & Barron, B. (2007). Do what you are: discover the perfect career for you through the secrets of personality type (4th ed.). New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
  28. Wickersham, L.E., & McGee, P. (2008). Perceptions of satisfaction and deeper learning in an online course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(1), 73-83.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links