Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of B-learning and F2F on college students’ engagement and retention in QBASIC programming

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Achieving learner engagement in the teaching and learning process is paramount towards ensuring knowledge retention in QBASIC programming. This study focuses on effects of b-learning and face-to-face (F2F) on college students’ engagement and retention in QBASIC programming. The study adopted quasi-experimental design with non-equivalent group research design. QBASIC Programming Achievement Test (QBPAT) and College Students’ Engagement Questionnaire (CSEQ) were instruments used for data collection. Results showed that the treatment groups’ retention mean score was significantly higher than the control group. Findings further showed that b-learning facilitated college students’ engagement and improved knowledge retention in QBASIC programming compared to their counterparts in the F2F group. It was recommended that faculty members should adopt innovative teaching pedagogies such as b-learning to promote students’ engagement and retention in the learning process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acat, B., & Donmez, I. (2009). To compare student-centred education and teacher-centred education in primary science and technology lesson in terms of learning environments. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1805–1809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, B. (2006). Enriching student experience through blended learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 12. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0612.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2011.

  • Araz, G., & Sungur, S. (2007). The interplay between cognitive and motivational variables in a problem-based learning environment. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armaral, K. & Shank, J. (2010). Enhancing student learning and retention with blended learning class guides. Educause Quarterly, 33(4). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/EnhancingStudentLearningandRet/219137. Accessed 28 Oct 2014.

  • Artino, A. R., & Jones, K. D. (2012). Exploring the complex relations between achievement emotions and self-regulated learning behaviors in online learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 170–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asiayi, R. I. (2013). Challenges of quality in higher education in Nigeria in the 21st century. International Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 3(2), 159–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auwal, A. (2013). Effects of teaching method on retention of Agricultural Science knowledge in senior secondary schools of Bauchi Local Government Area, Nigeria. International Journal of Science and Technology Education Research, 4(4), 63–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awodeyi, A. F., Akpan, E. T., & Udo, I. J. (2014). Enhancing teaching and learning of mathematics: Adoption of blended learning pedagogy in University of Uyo. International Journal of Science and Research, 3(11), 40–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awoniyi, T. A. (1979). Principles and practice of education. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5, 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baeten, M., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2013). Student-centred teaching methods: Can they optimize students’ approaches to learning in professional higher education? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balan, P., & Metcalfe, M. (2012). Identifying teaching methods that engage entrepreneurship students. Education+ Training, 54(5), 368–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, S. & Galloway, R. (2012). The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introductory physics course: a case study. In Proceedings of the HEA STEM learning and teaching conference (Vol. 1).

  • Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in higher Education, 40(6), 641–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene: ISTE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackboard, L. (2009). Blackboard Inc. New York: McGraw.

  • Bonk, C., & Graham, C. (2006). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, W. R., Gall, J. P., & Gall, M. D. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). White Plains: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., & Mark, J. W. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcome from a cross-care analysis. Journal of Computers & Education, 68, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsell, E., & Horejsi, M. (2011). Science 2.0. The Science Teacher, 78(2), 10.

  • Byrne, P. & Lyons, G. (2001). The effect of student attributes on success in programming. ITiCSE: Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 49–52). NY: ACM Press.

  • Chakraborty, M., & Muyia Nafukho, F. (2014). Strengthening student engagement: what do students want in online courses? European Journal of Training and Development, 38(9), 782–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54, 1222–1232 Forthcoming.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin March, 3–7.

  • Chui, K. J., & Manjit, S. S. (2006). Feedback on E-learning at a telecommunications company in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 4(1), 4–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, L. (2015). Grabbing students: Researchers have identified easy ways to boost student success by increasing their engagement in learning. American Psychological Association, 46(6), 58.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B. (2003). Course redesign for blended learning: Modern optics for technical professionals. International Journal of Continuing Engineering, Education and Lifelong Learning, 13(1/2), 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosgrove, S. B., & Olitsky, N. H. (2015). Knowledge retention, student learning, and blended course work: Evidence from principles of economics courses. Southern Economic Journal, 82(2), 556–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, U. (2014). Teaching the disembodied: Othering and activity systems in a blended synchronous learning situation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(6). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org. Accessed 28 Oct 2016.

  • Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, S. B., Diniz, J. A. & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2014). Dynamic fuzzy logic-based quality of interaction within blended-learning: The rare and contemporary dance cases. International Conference e-learning. Accessed 15 Sept, 2016 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED557268.pdf.

  • Diaz, S. B., Hadjileontiadou, S. J., Hadjileontiadis, L. J., & Diniz, J. A. (2015). Fuzzy cognitive mapping of LMS users’ quality of interaction within higher education blended learning environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 7399–7423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eduviews (2009). Blended Learning: Where Online and Face-to-Face Instruction Intersect for 21st Century Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on 10th June 2014 from http://www.blackboard.com. Accessed 10 June 2014.

  • European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP, 2015). Vocational pedagogies and benefits for learners: practices and challenges in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Cedefop research paper; No 47. Accessed on 10/10/2017 from http://europa.eu.

  • Federal Ministry of Education. (2004). National Policy on education (4th ed.). Abuja: NERDC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Ministry of Education. (2012). National Commission for colleges of education: Nigeria certificate in education minimum standards for vocational and technical education in education. Gariki Abuja: NCCE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M. (2002). Reaching the second tier learning and teaching styles in colleges science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(2), 286–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. (2014). Eight myths of student disengagement: Creating classrooms of deep learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, M. (2001). What factors effect retention in the classroom? Available from https://gse.gmu.edu/assets/docs/lmtip/vol3/M.Gaines.doc. Accessed 04 Jul 2013.

  • Gambari, A. I., Shittu, A. T., Ogunlade, O. O., & Osunlade, O. R. (2018). Effectiveness of blended learning and elearning modes of instruction on the performance of undergraduates in Kwara state, Nigeria. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannousi, M., Vernadakis, N., Derri, V., Michalopoulos, M. & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2009). Students’ satisfaction from blended learning instruction. In TCC (pp. 61–68). Hawaii: TCC.

  • Hagan, D. & Markham, S. (2000). Does it help to have some programming experience before beginning a computing degree program? Proceedings of the 5th Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE ITiCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ACM, NY, pp. 25–28.

  • Hao, Y. (2014). Students’ attitude towards a flipped classroom and its relationship with motivation orientations in an undergraduate course. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & teacher education international conference 2014 (pp. 2835–2840). Chesapeake: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/131225. Accessed 13 Oct 2017.

  • Hartman, J.L., Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (1999). Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: A dependent or independent variable? Paper presented at the Sloan Summer ALN Workshops: Learning Effectiveness and Faculty Satisfaction, Urbana, IL. http://plcmc.org/teens/secondlife.asp, http://plcmcl2-about.blogspot.com/, and conversation with Kelly Czarnecki, librarian, public library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, February 8, 2008 http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~divitini/umocec2003/Final/Ahonen.pdf. Accessed 06 Jul 2011.

  • Harun, N. F., Yusof, K. M., Jamaludin, M. Z., & Hassan, S. A. H. S. (2012). Motivation in problem-based learning implementation. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56(2012), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P., Connolly, J., & Feeney, L. (2009). Blended learning: overview and recommendations for successful implementation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(3), 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1, 16013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilesen, S. B. (2010). What is the academic efficacy of podcasting? Computers & Education, 55(2010), 1063–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herold, B. (2016, February 5). Issues A-Z: Technology in Education: An overview. Education Week. Retrieved on 10/10/2017 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/technology-in-education/. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.

  • Hill, P. (2012). Online educational delivery models: A descriptive view. Educause Review, 47(6), 84–97. http://www.publicationshare.com/docs/faculty_survey_report.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.

  • Hughes, G. (2007). Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hytten, K. J. (2010). Facebook's contribution to educationally purposeful activities and college student engagement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Vermont).

  • Ige, O. A., & Hlalele, D. J. (2017). Effects of computer-aided and blended teaching strategies on students’ achievement in civic education concepts in mountain learning ecologies. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2693–2709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) (2008). Technology and Student Achievement—The Indelible Link ISTE Policy Brief retrieved from http://www.iste.org. Accessed 04 Jul 2011.

  • Irvine, V. (2010). Exploring learners needs for collaborative and access. In J. Hunter (Ed.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2010 (pp. 1093–1097). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

  • Junco, R., Heibergert, G. & Loken, V. (2010). The effect of twitter on college student engagement and grades, 1–14, accessed from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x.

  • Kahanwal, B. (2013). Abstraction level taxonomy of programming language frameworks. International Journal of Programming Languages and Applications (IJPLA), 3(4), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, B. B. (2014). The effects of motivation on achievement and satisfaction in a flipped classroom learning environment. Doctoral dissertation, graduate Faculty of the School of education, North Central University.

  • Kember, D., McNaught, C., Chong, F. C., Lam, P., & Cheng, K. F. (2010). Understanding the ways in which design features of educational websites impact upon student learning outcomes in blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1183–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny, J.G., & Kurtz, T. E. (1985). Back to BASIC: The history, corruption, and future of the language. Addison-Wesley.

  • Kettle, M. (2013). Flipped physics. Physics Education, 48(5), 593–596. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/48/5/593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. (2007). Different patterns of student-faculty interaction in research universities: an analysis by student gender, race, SES, and first-generation status.

  • King, S. O., & Robinson, C. L. (2009). ‘Pretty lights’ and Maths! Increasing student engagement and enhancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems. Computers & Education, 53, 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiriakidis, P., Decosta, J. W., & Sandu, A. (2011). What is the effect of grade point average (GPA) on courses taken either face-to-face or online by undergraduate working adult students? Revista de Cercetaresi Interventie Sociala, 33, 7–26 ISSN: 1584-5397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koramo, M. (2011). Developing learning environments in initial VET: National developmental guidelines and descriptions of development projects on learning environments funded by the National Board of education in 2008–10. Finnish National Board of Education: Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G.D. (2002). The National Survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University, Bloomington. Available at: http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/psychometric_framework_2002.pdf. Last accessed 25 Feb 2010.

  • Kuh, G. D. (2009). What students’ affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 683–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Perez, M. V., Perez-Lopez, M. C., & Rodriguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56(2011), 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading: Addison -Wesley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Markwell, D. (2007). The challenge of student engagement. In Keynote address at the Teaching and Learning Forum. University of Western Australia, 30–31 January.

  • Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: good practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCue, L. S., & Scales, G. R. (2007). Embracing the middle ground: Engaging on-and off- campus students within the same ‘classroom’. In B. B. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 ASEE southeastern section annual conference and meeting [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. (2007). Critical thinking: an exploration of theory and practice. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K. R. (2002). Blended learning: A strategic action plan for a new campus. Seminole: University of Central Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2001). The College Student Report (CRS). Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neo, M., & Neo, T.-K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated constructivist learning- students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 254–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20, 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norberg, A. (2012). Blended learning and new education logistics in northern Sweden. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information technologies (pp. 327–330). Boulder: EDUCAUSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norm, F. (2012). Report defining blended learning. Accessed http://learningspaces.org/papers/Defining_Blended_Learning_NF.pdf on 10/05/2017. Accessed 10 May 2017.

  • OECD (2013). Skilled for Life? Key Findings from the Survey of Adult Skills. Accessed from http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/SkillsOutlook_2013_ebook.pdf. Accessed 06 Nov 2017.

  • Okwo, F. A. (2001). Research Methodology. In E. A. C. Okeke & G. C. Offorma (Eds.), Project/Thesis writing simplified (pp. 90–127). Nsukka: Institute of Education, University of Nigeria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oladipo, S., Olowoye, B., & Adenaike, A. (2010). Comparative study of the effect of study technology mode of instruction and lecture method on the academic performance of university students in Nigeria: Implication for academic staff capacity development. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 8(2), 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olelewe, C. J., & Agomuo, E. E. (2016). Effects of B-learning and F2F learning environments on students’ achievement in QBASIC programming. Computers & Education, 103, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olelewe, C. J., & Okwor, A. N. (2017). Lecturers’ perception of interactive whiteboard for instructional delivery in tertiary institutions in Enugu state, Nigeria. Journal of Computer in Education, 4(2), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-017-0077-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T. (2006). How college affects students: ten directions for future research. Journal of College Student Development, 47(5), 508–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A., & Blaich, C. (2009). Validation of the NSSE benchmarks and deep approaches to learning against Liberal arts outcomes. Iowa City: University of Iowa Center for Research on Undergraduate Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope, C. (2010). Breaking down barriers: Providing flexible participation option for on-campus course. Paper presented at the Fifth Education Research Group of Adelaide Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

  • Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R. & Evans, E. D (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 301–342.

  • Rasaki, J. O. (2012). Software development: An entrepreneurial skills requirement by computer science students. Proceeding of the 7 th National Conference of the School of Sciences Federal College of Education, Eha-Amufu.

  • Regha, I. O. (2015). Adoption of blended learning into the Nigerian education system: Prospects and challenges. International Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 129–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, G. (2010). Technology and learning expectations of the net generation. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation 3.1-3.7). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/EducatingtheNetGeneration/Technologyand LearningExpectati/6056. Accessed 03 June 2012.

  • Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81(3), 207–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekaran, S. (2003). Measurement: Scaling, reliability, validity. In Research methods for business: A skill building approach. London: Wiley.

  • Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation, and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suleiman, M. S., Salaudeen, B. M., & Falode, O. C. (2017). Effects of computer-based blended learning strategy on secondary school chemistry students’ retention in individualized and collaborative learning settings in Minna, Niger state, Nigeria. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy (BJSEP), 11(2), 267–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L., Woodbury, J. & Jarman, E. (2002). Learning styles and performance in the introductory programming sequence. Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 33–37). NY: ACM Press.

  • Traub, R. E. (1994). Reliability for the social sciences: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • TYNKER (n.d). Programming is the New Literacy. Accessed from https://www.tynker.com/why-tynker on 31/10/2017.

  • Uwatt, L. E. (1988). Benefiting from lectures: A call for emphasis on listening skills at the university level. Nigerian Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(1). Available at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj/vol8/iss2/13. Accessed 03 Jun 2012.

  • van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2014). Engaging students: the role of teacher beliefs and interpersonal teacher behavior in fostering student engagement in vocational education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinita, D., & Shikha, B. (2015). The retention effect of computer assisted instruction (CAI) on student’s achievement for teaching the chemistry topics of class VIII students. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(11), 485–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos, N., van der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2010). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education, 11(2011), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: using a complex adaptive systems framework. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wankel, C., & Blessinger, P. (Eds.). (2013). Increasing student engagement and retention in e-learning environments: Web 2.0 and blended learning technologies. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Webber, K. L., Krylow, R. B., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college student success and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 54(6), 591–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisfeld, M. (2013). The importance of object-oriented programming in the era of Mobile development. Accessed from http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2036576 on 2/11/2017.

  • Wilson, B.C. & Shrock, S. (2001). Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: A study of twelve factors. Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 184–188). NY: ACM Press.

  • Wright, A., & Angelini, M. (2012). Student engagement as transformation: an exploration of the academic and personal development of student mentors. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 4(2), 156–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y., & Wu, W. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computers and Education, 59, 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zweekhorst, M. B., & Maas, J. (2015). ICT in higher education: students perceive increased engagement. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 7(1), 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The researchers are grateful to Nigerian Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETfund) for providing the funding for the lead researcher’s Doctoral studies. Also, acknowledged is my former employer, Federal College of Education Eha-Amufu, Enugu State, for their support in accessing TETfund study grant for the 2011 academic year. Also, acknowledged is Indiana State University for granting us the written permission to use the National Survey of Student Engagement’s (NSSE) instrument for this study. Finally, the researchers are grateful to the peer reviewers for their significant contributions which further helped to improve the quality of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer & Robotics Education, Faculty of Vocational & Technical Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, 410001, Nigeria

    Chijioke Jonathan Olelewe & Peter Uzochukwu Obichukwu

  2. Department of Business Education, Faculty of Vocational and Technical Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, 410001, Nigeria

    Emmanuel E. Agomuo

Authors
  1. Chijioke Jonathan Olelewe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuel E. Agomuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Uzochukwu Obichukwu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chijioke Jonathan Olelewe.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: College Students’ Engagement Questionnaire (CSEQ)

Demographic Data

figure a

Please indicate the your experience on the frequency of your involvement in the following QBasic programming class activities

S/n

Item Statement

VO

O

S

N

1.

Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions

    

2

Made a class presentation

    

3

Worked with other students on projects during class

    

4

Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments

    

5

Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class discussions

    

6

Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)

    

7

Used an electronic medium (listserv, chat group, Internet, instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment

    

8

Used e-mail to communicate with an instructor

    

9

Discussed assignments or projects with an instructor

    

10

Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic performance

    

11

Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.)

    

12

Spending significant amounts of time studying and on academic work

    

13

Providing the support you need to help you succeed academically

    

14

Encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds

    

15

Helping you cope with your academic and non-academic responsibilities.

    

16

Using computers in academic work

    

17

Acquiring programming or work-related knowledge and skills

    

18

Analyzing quantitative problems using computer and information technology

    

19

Working effectively with other students

    

20

Individually learning on how to solving complex real-world problems

    
  1. KEY: Very often = 4, Often = 3, Sometimes = 2, Never = 1

Appendix B

figure bbfigure bbfigure bb

Appendix C

Learning object (LO) interface menu for treatment group

figure c

Appendix D

Showing the comment lines for immediate feedback

figure d

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olelewe, C.J., Agomuo, E.E. & Obichukwu, P.U. Effects of B-learning and F2F on college students’ engagement and retention in QBASIC programming. Educ Inf Technol 24, 2701–2726 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09882-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09882-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation