Perceptions of sport science students on the potential applications and limitations of blended learning in their education: a qualitative study

References

• Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27, 12–26. doi:10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 87–122. doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrio, M., Agell, L., Banos, J. E., Moyano, E., Larramona, P., & Perez, J. (2016). Benefits of using a hybrid problem-based learning curriculum to improve long-term learning acquisition in undergraduate biology education. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 363, fnw159. doi:10.1093/femsle/fnw159
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47, 257–278. doi:10.1111/bjet.12243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, L. K. (2011). A 3-year experience implementing blended TBL: Active instructional methods can shift student attitudes to learning. Medical Teacher, 33, 750–753. doi:10.3109/0142159x.2011.558948
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Bulletin, 7, 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A., & Skinner, J. (2009). Methods of data collection for sport management research Qualitative Research in Sport Management (pp. 101–126). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, R., & Shannon, S. J. (2013). Engaging with blended learning to improve students’ learning outcomes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38, 359–369. doi:10.1080/03043797.2013.766679
   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, 111, 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frimming, R. E., & Bordelon, T. D. (2016). Physical education students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their distance education courses. Physical Educator, 73, 340–351.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: framework, principles, and guidelines (p. 5). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Gecer, A., & Dag, F. (2012). A blended learning experience. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12, 438–442.
   Google Scholar
• Gulbahar, Y., & Madran, O. R. (2009). Communication and collaboration, satisfaction, equity, and autonomy in blended learning environments: A case from Turkey. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Harnisch, H., & Taylor-Murison, L. (2012). Transition and technology—Evaluation of blended learning delivered by university staff to 6th form students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 398–410. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01190.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh, C., & Knudson, D. (2008). Student factors related to learning in biomechanics. Sports Biomechanics, 7, 398–402. doi:10.1080/14763140802233207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh, C., Mache, M., & Knudson, D. (2012). Does student learning style affect performance on different formats of biomechanics examinations? Sports Biomechanics, 11, 108–119. doi:10.1080/14763141.2011.637128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo, Y.-C., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E. E., & Walker, A. E. (2014). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments. Distance Education, 35, 360–381. doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.955265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malcolm, D. (2008). The SAGE dictionary of sports studies. (pp. 477–511). London: Sage.10.4135/9781446212172
   Google Scholar
• McGuckin, T. A., & Sealey, R. M. (2013). Integrating Facebook into a university cohort to enhance student sense of belonging: A pilot program in Sport and Exercise Science. Australian Educational Computing, 28, 83–91.
   Google Scholar
• Meydanlioglu, A., & Arikan, F. (2014). Effect of hybrid learning in higher education. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 8, 1292–1295.
   Google Scholar
• Moffett, J. (2015). Twelve tips for “flipping” the classroom. Medical Teacher, 37, 331–336. doi:10.3109/0142159x.2014.943710
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11, 185–200.
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed., pp. 480–485). Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19, 207–216. doi:10.1108/10748121111163913
   Google Scholar
• Prensky, M. (2011). Digital natives, digital immigrant Part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
   Google Scholar
• Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105, 44–49.10.14307/JFCS105.2.12
   Google Scholar
• Seidel, S. B., & Tanner, K. D. (2013). “What if students revolt?”—Considering student resistance: Origins, options, and opportunities for investigation. Cell Biology Education, 12, 586–595. doi:10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190
   Google Scholar
• Stockwell, B. R., Stockwell, M. S., Cennamo, M., & Jiang, E. (2015). Blended learning improves science education. Cell, 162, 933–936. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ten Cate, T. J., Kusurkar, R. A., & Williams, G. C. (2011). How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE Guide No. 59. Medical Teacher, 33, 961–973. doi:10.3109/0142159x.2011.595435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waha, B., & Davis, K. (2014). University students’ perspective on blended learning. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36, 172–182. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2014.884677
   Google Scholar
• Walton, G., & Hepworth, M. (2013). Using assignment data to analyse a blended information literacy intervention: A quantitative approach. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45, 53–63.10.1177/0961000611434999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xin, H., Kempland, M., & Blankson, F. H. (2015). Adaptability and replicability of web-facilitated, hybrid, and online learning in an undergraduate exercise psychology course. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14, 19–30.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish (1st ed., p. 78). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, J. Q., Van Merrienboer, J., Durning, S., & Ten Cate, O. (2014). Cognitive Load Theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Medical Teacher, 36, 371–384. doi:10.3109/0142159x.2014.889290
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahid, M. A., Varghese, R., Mohammed, A. M., & Ayed, A. K. (2016). Comparison of the problem based learning-driven with the traditional didactic-lecture-based curricula. International Journal of Medical Education, 7, 181–187. doi:10.5116/ijme.5749.80f5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar