View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Delivering Blended Learning to Transnational Students: Students' Perceptions and Needs-Satisfaction

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Delivering Blended Learning to Transnational Students: Students' Perceptions and Needs-Satisfaction
Language: English
Authors: de Freitas, Sara, Waring, Peter, Douglas, Heather E. (ORCID 0000-0002-1990-227X), Curtis, Guy J. (ORCID 0000-0002-4174-6955), Ritchie, Stephen M.
Source: Studies in Higher Education. 2022 47(9):1890-1902.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Blended Learning, Student Attitudes, Need Gratification, Developing Nations, Foreign Countries, Self Determination, Psychological Patterns, Global Approach, International Programs, Electronic Learning, Distance Education, College Students
Geographic Terms: Singapore, Australia
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2021.1983533
ISSN: 0307-5079
1470-174X
Abstract: Transnational education (TNE) has grown significantly in developing countries but providing quality and scaling to large student numbers is a challenge for universities. Blended learning offers a potential solution for scaling at high quality. A large-scale project delivering a blended learning programme for TNE students in South-East Asia was evaluated. The aim of this research was to assess the students' perceptions of the changes from predominantly face-to-face to blended mode. A student voice survey based on self-determination theory was administered to participating students (n = 1718) to assess their needs, satisfaction and frustration levels. All students found the online resources useful. Students who had experienced the previous delivery of education experienced higher levels of frustration. Conversely, students commencing after the changes had been implemented reported higher levels of satisfaction and lower frustration. Furthermore, mature-age students who attended evening classes perceived the blended approach more positively.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1367887
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE9FpUCpklKEI6mjeNfQZ78AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEfDC_YsYeyLmKCHygIBEICBmrhQQYigpjNbhKLH3trkVjPxcKGMDyGLcNacl4GGPQtIJ-TOIE4JofXJ1-pL3xC9SJ9M7wOx53gQPbTWo0p3gCJBKC4xGYS7ufxjaiaQ5WJHMfcQCSOyEbVDZfpZA57dt7vpZrouOuPTda4tPh_R-5C41Ils7Try5T0t_M3vcBLOamVvQruNzRQvwNdnS4UFm2uFqHUELEayl5I=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0158963240;she01sep.22;2022Sep09.05:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0158963240-1">Delivering blended learning to transnational students: students' perceptions and needs-satisfaction </title> <p>Transnational education (TNE) has grown significantly in developing countries but providing quality and scaling to large student numbers is a challenge for universities. Blended learning offers a potential solution for scaling at high quality. A large-scale project delivering a blended learning programme for TNE students in South-East Asia was evaluated. The aim of this research was to assess the students' perceptions of the changes from predominantly face-to-face to blended mode. A student voice survey based on self-determination theory was administered to participating students (n = 1718) to assess their needs, satisfaction and frustration levels. All students found the online resources useful. Students who had experienced the previous delivery of education experienced higher levels of frustration. Conversely, students commencing after the changes had been implemented reported higher levels of satisfaction and lower frustration. Furthermore, mature-age students who attended evening classes perceived the blended approach more positively.</p> <p>Keywords: Blended learning; transnational education; transnational students; higher education; digital learning</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-2">Background: transnational education</hd> <p>The internationalisation of education globally has been driven partly by growing student numbers studying transnationally (e.g. Lee [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]; Tight [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref2">42</reflink>]). Growing transnational student enrolments are a part of the bigger picture of massification as populations grow and the need for upskilling increases globally. This impacts student numbers studying both in their home country and overseas. Over two decades, the growth trend which started in 1998, has contributed to a search for new education delivery models, such as blended education, to deal with growing class sizes and the requirement for improving quality (e.g. Hornsby and Osman [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]; Giannakis and Bullivant [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]). At the same time, the demand for higher education in developing countries has not been met, and so forecasts have predicted future growth (e.g. Mok and Neubauer [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although this two-decade-long trend may well be impacted by the global pandemic as student recruitment patterns and behaviours adjust and change to less mobility to accommodate lockdowns, managing the existing growth has been challenging for the sector. As an example, the OECD ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref6">32</reflink>]) estimated that there were approximately four million international tertiary students, which represented an increase of more than 50% from 2005. International tertiary students are those post-secondary students who study in a country other than their country of origin. Furthermore, the Chaney Report (International Advisory Council [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]) estimated that international tertiary enrolments would grow to more than seven million by 2020, with Asian international students making up the vast bulk of this figure.</p> <p>Even though growth in international education can be observed around the globe it has been particularly pronounced in Asia where the key drivers include rapid urbanisation, high esteem associated with tertiary education, low domestic institutional capacity relative to demand, rising incomes and larger populations of young people (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref8">24</reflink>]; Mok [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]; UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]). Within these Asian markets, there are cohorts of students who are internationally mobile, wealthier, and have the means and the inclination to study abroad. However, another cohort that is growing in importance consists of students, who, for varied reasons, choose to study for a degree from a reputable overseas university that delivers education in their home country through a transnational education (TNE) arrangement.</p> <p>TNE refers to 'the mobility of an education programme or higher education institution between countries' (Knight [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref11">18</reflink>], 36). In effect, TNE is international education without the need for student mobility. TNE is not new but its prevalence has grown in recent decades by universities that wish to access new markets and grow revenue streams, expand access to higher education as well as improve their international reputations, and in some cases, enhance international research and networks (see Bannier [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Data on the global rise of TNE are difficult to gather due to varied and partial data collection systems. Yet, comparisons between available data from the UK and Australian providers are illustrative of the TNE expansion. The British Council has calculated that there are more than 230 branch campuses of tertiary institutions operating globally and more than 665,000[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>] students enrolled in UK university programmes outside the UK, with Oxford Brookes, the Open University and University of London Worldwide the largest providers (Hiles [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]). The UK's Quality Assurance Agency (QAA [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref15">35</reflink>]) has estimated that over 80% of UK Universities are involved in TNE to some extent, with TNE enrolment growing by 39% between 2012 and 2017. Similarly, in Australia, TNE enrolments totalled 363,000 in 2015, up from 347,000 in 2014, or approximately equivalent to half of all international student enrolments onshore (Department of Education and Training [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref16">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>TNE can be delivered through different models that fall broadly within collaborative or independent approaches (see Knight [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]). Within the independent category there are fully fledged campuses (or 'branch' campuses) that are established by overseas universities to deliver an educational experience that is the equivalent to their home campus and requires significant investment and therefore greater risk (Wilkins and Juusola [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref18">49</reflink>]). Collaborative approaches such as partnering seek to deliver an institution's courses overseas in collaboration with another organisation. This is a popular model that requires significantly less investment. Often partners are private sector for-profit entities or other universities seeking accreditation or reputation, high-quality content or educational expertise to attract students.</p> <p>All models of TNE have associated challenges; for example, difficulties associated with consistency with the home institution in terms of quality, local relevance of content and the need for localisation, training requirements of affiliate tutors, changing delivery modes and ongoing incremental development of the curriculum (McBurnie and Ziguras [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref19">25</reflink>]). Delivering learning and teaching in diverse cultural environments with varying 'expectations and power and role inequalities' (Lynne et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref20">23</reflink>], 2) is another challenge for TNE providers. In response to these challenges, the Australian regulator, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref21">41</reflink>]), has introduced a set of higher education standards around third-party teaching arrangements, ensuring that Australian universities are delivering quality higher education offshore.</p> <p>For students in host countries, TNE offers students the opportunity to study for a degree from a quality foreign institution without travelling abroad. Reasons for studying at home might be personal, economic or cultural. However, the main reason for students wishing to acquire an international education in their home country tends to be economic. The <emph>affordability</emph> of international education is a significant driver of the desire to study at home (McBurnie and Ziguras [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref22">25</reflink>]); however, the convenience of TNE for students with family and employment obligations is another factor (Ziguras and McBurnie [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref23">50</reflink>]). Moreover, TNE is often welcomed by host countries as a means of enhancing higher education participation without investing in new Universities. TNE may bring other benefits to host countries such as academic capacity building and the possibility of research relationships with international partners. For countries whose institutions are involved in the provision of TNE, the benefits may include increased export earnings as well as the extension of their 'soft power' influence (Wilkins and Juusola [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref24">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>While developing Asian countries are growing their domestic institutional capacity, it is unlikely that in-country provision alone will meet future demand for higher education. For this reason, university provision of transnational and online strategies could address any shortfall by institutions with an international outlook.</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-3">The use of online and blended learning for transnational education students</hd> <p>Online distance education holds some advantages for students around the flexibility of learning that may be delivered at a lower cost, despite the need for initial investment (e.g. Tynan, Ryan, and Lamont-Mills [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref25">43</reflink>]; Croucher et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]). While student satisfaction is often difficult to measure, the available literature comparing online with distance education indicates that a blend of online and face-to-face modes seems to show favourable improvements in student satisfaction. While this will not be the case for all students, there is a link between self-efficacy and student motivation (e.g. Abou Naaj, Nachouki, and & Ankit [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>]; Sorden and Munene [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref28">39</reflink>]). Online-only learning traditionally results in a higher attrition rate for which coaching, remedial teaching and peer mentoring are credible interventions (Delnoij et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref29">8</reflink>]). In the case of blended modes of delivery, the impact upon different cohorts, such as mature age students, and many variables both study-focused and home-focused can be relevant (e.g. Means et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>]). The use of ICT technologies for supporting transnational students introduces new challenges, such as sustaining the required level of investment in the ICT infrastructure, training of technical support staff and equity between on- and off-shore students (Henderson, Barnett, and Barrett [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]). Without significant investment, it is difficult to maintain an equitable learning experience for all students, comply with standards and ensure high-quality curriculum delivery (Wilkins [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref32">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Blended learning – or hybrid learning – has been defined as a combination of face-to-face and online delivery (e.g. Vo, Zhu, and Diep [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref33">46</reflink>]). The recent pandemic has accelerated the uptake of blended and online education (e.g. Sun, Tang, and Zuo [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]). According to the findings of meta reviews undertaken over the last decade or so, the move to blended learning provides improved results for students over online or traditional offerings (e.g. Means et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref35">26</reflink>], Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]). Often blended learning brings together a combination of classroom activity combined with recorded lectures and video content (Guo, Kim, and Rubin [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]). Notwithstanding the significant set-up costs, blended learning can offset this investment with savings associated with reduced teacher-led contact time and usage of facilities (e.g. Tynan, Ryan, and Lamont-Mills [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref38">43</reflink>]). More recent studies about student performance even show improvement of grades (e.g. Vo, Zhu, and Diep [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref39">46</reflink>]; Vallée et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref40">45</reflink>]). For example, the availability of a virtual learning environment 'encouraged students to adopt a deep learning approach that improved their academic achievement' (Chowdhry, Sieler, and Alwis [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>], 13). Consistently, meta reviews of the literature point to students' appreciation of greater flexibility and capability for applying lessons learnt (e.g. Phillips, Schumacher, and Arif [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref42">33</reflink>]). While overall the meta reviews show strengths to blended education, some of the challenges signalled include: student self-regulation due to the greater emphasis on self-directed learning and the need for teacher training requirements in support of teachers (Rasheed, Kamsin, and Abdullah [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref43">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>The aim of this research was to assess the students' perceptions of the changes from predominantly face-to-face to blended mode across survey rounds in 2017 and 2018 in a TNE case involving the partnership between an Australian university and a provider in Singapore. This study focuses upon student perceptions of blended learning delivery, which brings to the fore a range of complex inter-related aspects that have an impact on the student experience. These include curriculum design (e.g. the use of active learning to support greater student engagement; Baepler, Walker, and Driessen [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>]), the curriculum design frameworks (Mirriahi, Alonzo, and Fox [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref45">27</reflink>]), the method of teaching delivery adopted (e.g. flipped or classroom modes), as well as individual aspects such as student demographics and background (Francis and Shannon [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>The motivation for this study was twofold. First, as a curriculum evaluation project, it was desirable to identify the student perceptions of blended learning, and to find out whether there were differences between various cohorts of students that might lead to improved curriculum and activity design, learning delivery modes adopted, and to align student expectations with blended delivery most effectively. Second, the outcomes of the evaluation might inform other TNE providers on the design and delivery of blended learning for various student cohorts in Asian contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-4">Method</hd> <p>The study was conducted to investigate the outcomes of a large blended learning programme delivered offshore by an Australian university for all its TNE students in Singapore. It was first implemented in 2017 when the university had a large transnational cohort (5980 students or 24.7% of the University's total enrolment). A follow-up phase of the study was conducted with a second cohort during the TNE rollout in 2018.</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-5">Design</hd> <p>A case study approach was adopted, emphasising analyses of quantitative data. The data were based on students' self-reports of their psychological need satisfaction/frustration levels as they experienced the different approaches to curriculum delivery. A self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan and Deci [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref47">38</reflink>]) approach proposes that the satisfaction and frustration of psychological needs are critical to students' intrinsic motivation and educational engagement (Reeve [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref48">37</reflink>]). The needs satisfaction and frustration of students in the 2018 cohort were assessed as the blended learning project was implemented.</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-6">Introduction to the case</hd> <p>Tertiary education represents one of Australia's most valuable services exports, with international education contributing AUD $37.6 billion to the Australian economy in 2019 prior to the global COVID-19 pandemic (Austrade [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>]). Remarkably, in 2019, there were more than 752,000 international students studying in Australian institutions. This made Australia the third most popular destination in the world for higher education in 2019 after the United States and the United Kingdom (OECD [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref50">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Murdoch University is a mid-sized Australian government-funded university with 24,124 students and a home campus in Perth, Western Australia (Data from 2015: Murdoch University: Annual Report [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]). The university already offered most of its courses online and began delivering its degree programmes transnationally in the 1990s. These initial TNE ventures were limited to a small number of programmes with a range of offshore partners and managed at a School level. TNE at Murdoch became more significant when it centralised its offerings in Singapore in 2004 with the trade association, the Singapore Manufacturing Association. In 2009 a second partnership in Singapore with global education provider, Kaplan, was established. By partnering with Kaplan and offering Murdoch accredited courses through their campus in Singapore, enrolments grew more than 300% between 2009 and 2014. This growth was fuelled by a demand for tertiary education in Singapore that was not met by their public universities at the time (Waring [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>As part of delivering a new curriculum to approximately 6000 transnational students in Singapore, a project was implemented to move student learning from 3 h per week face-to-face to an intensive mode of four contact hours in alternate weeks over 12 weeks, supplemented with a minimum of 3 h of digital online content in each of the 172 units (modules) offered. The project, which became known as the 'Transforming Transnational Education Delivery Project' or 'the TNE project' was initiated as a large-scale cross-university project involving six of the eight Murdoch Schools. The programme was delivered to two cohorts of students in Singapore: daytime students (predominantly young adults) and evening students (predominantly working and mature age students).</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-7">Curriculum development and support</hd> <p>Two external partners were engaged to deliver the new online activities. The Open Universities Australia (OUA) provided pedagogic support for staff involved with the programme and Tata Interactive Systems (TIS) developed simulations, games and interactive quizzes.</p> <p>Additional on-campus support included both physical infrastructure and pedagogic assistance. New content production facilities in Australia included a production-level Lightboard studio which allowed teachers to deliver a lecture while using a board for in-the-moment inscriptions (particularly good for maths and science teaching), and studios for short video recording (One Touch Studio). Learning designers assisted academic staff with practical matters using university-branded content templates for a consistent look and feel of materials, self-assessment tools and practitioner guides, web resources and upgraded learning management design and functionality.</p> <p>The kinds of engaging and interactive digital content developed included: video lectures, instruction videos, simulations and games, interactive quizzes, and redesign of templates for online materials. A minimum of 3 h of digital content was included in each of the 172 modules.</p> <p>Affiliate staff in Singapore were provided pedagogic support from the university's learning and teaching centre, external support from Open Universities Australia (OUA), and mentoring from Australian unit coordinators.</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-8">Participants and measures</hd> <p> <emph>Student Survey on the TNE Project, 2017.</emph> As the TNE project was being implemented in the first few months of 2017 (Trimester 1) in Singapore, a survey of students was undertaken in February 2017, at the beginning of the programme roll out. We were targeting > 10% completion rates for the surveys as a reasonable target. By having greater publicity and events in support of the programme, we received 1213 responses from students (20.2% of the student cohort). The short survey asked students for their feedback of the 6 × 4-h timetable, blended learning and their familiarity with the digital assets that were developed as part of the project. We also asked students how and when they were accessing and using the digital learning resources. We did not collect demographic data of age and gender to maintain student anonymity. We did collect information on their prior education, the year they commenced their studies, and when they came to campus for classes. We also asked students how satisfied they were with their degree programme, and with the change in the class timetable because of blended learning. Both quantitative rating scales and qualitative textbox response formats were used.</p> <p> <emph>Student Survey on the TNE Project, 2018.</emph> A follow-up blended learning survey was conducted with students in April of 2018 – a year after the initial programme was established. More than 500 responses were received in two weeks (<emph>N</emph> = 595: 10% of student population). Students responded to the same questions as in the 2017 survey. In 2018 we further administered the <emph>Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale</emph> (NSFS; Longo et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref53">22</reflink>]). Need satisfaction is a precursor to intrinsic motivation, well-being, and engagement, whereas need frustration is related to burnout, stress and disengagement (Longo et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref54">22</reflink>]). The scale contained 18 items each rated on a 7-point scale anchored with 'strongly agree' and 'strongly disagree'. The NSFS had six 3-item subscales, with three subscales measuring the extent to which students feel their studies provide satisfaction of their basic psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence (e.g. 'In my studies I feel free to decide what to do') and the other three subscales measuring need frustration in these domains (e.g. 'In my studies, sometimes I feel a bit rejected by others'). The NSFS demonstrated excellent psychometric properties in several cross-national studies (e.g. Longo et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref55">22</reflink>]; Longo, Alcaraz-Ibáñez, and Sicilia [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref56">21</reflink>]). Internal reliabilities in the current study were measured using Cronbach's alpha and ranged between <emph>α</emph> =.75 for the Competence Frustration scale and <emph>α</emph> =.90 for the Autonomy Satisfaction scale.</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-9">Data analysis</hd> <p>Data analysis was conducted in SPSS 24.0. Across both 2017 and 2018 surveys, we examined differences between students who had commenced before 2017 and therefore had the experience of the old teaching model, and those who had commenced in 2017 and onwards. We further interrogated the data for potential differences between students studying during the day, and those studying their programme of an evening. We conducted these comparisons using independent samples <emph>t</emph>-tests on familiarity with learning materials and satisfaction questions. For the 2018 survey, we cleaned and scored the six subscales of the NSFS, examining scores for normality violations. We then examined differences between students commencing before 2017 versus from 2017, and daytime versus evening students using independent samples <emph>t</emph>-tests. We further explored how and when students were accessing the online learning material using Friedman tests for ranked data.</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-10">Results</hd> <p> <emph>Student Voices on the TNE project, 2017.</emph> Our main findings demonstrated that the students who were less satisfied with the changes were those who had commenced their degree programmes under the old delivery model of 3 h every week for 12 weeks. Under the new model they were required to attend every second week for 4 h at a time. Examining results by commencement date using independent samples <emph>t</emph>-tests indicated that students commencing in 2017 expressed more satisfaction with the 6 × 4 timetable (<emph>M </emph>= 2.61, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.25) than students who had studied under the old model (<emph>M = </emph>1.84, <emph>SD</emph> =.99), <emph>t</emph>(143.2) = 6.57, <emph>p</emph> <.001. They also expressed a higher level of familiarity with blended learning (<emph>M </emph>= 2.22, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.88), <emph>t</emph>(1051) = 3.888, <emph>p</emph> <.001, and placed a higher value on the usefulness of the online resources (<emph>M</emph> = 2.70, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.05), <emph>t</emph>(1050) = 2.44, <emph>p </emph>=.015, than continuing students (<emph>M = </emph>2.22, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.02 and <emph>M </emph>= 2.45, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.06, respectively). Perhaps unsurprisingly, continuing students reported higher familiarity with the learning management system (LMS) (<emph>M</emph> = 3.08, <emph>SD</emph> =.95 versus <emph>M = </emph>2.76, <emph>SD</emph> =.98 for commencing students), <emph>t</emph>(1051) = 3.56, <emph>p </emph><.001.</p> <p>According to qualitative comments, for adult learners who attended class in the evenings, working during the day and attending a 4-h class in the evening proved exhausting. However, the qualitative findings that evening students were less satisfied than daytime students were not borne out by the quantitative data. In fact, evening students reported slightly higher satisfaction (<emph>M </emph>= 2.85, <emph>SD </emph>=.99) with their Murdoch course than daytime students (<emph>M </emph>= 2.71, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.07), <emph>t</emph>(1044.8) = 2.19, <emph>p</emph> =.029. They also found the online resources more useful (<emph>M</emph> = 2.57, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.05 versus <emph>M</emph> = 2.39, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.07 for daytime students), <emph>t</emph>(1045) = 2.85, <emph>p</emph> =.004, were more familiar with blended learning (<emph>M</emph> = 2.01, <emph>SD</emph> =.95 versus <emph>M</emph> = 1.83, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.02 for daytime students), <emph>t</emph>(1046) = 2.94, <emph>p</emph> =.003, and were more satisfied with the 4-h timetable (<emph>M</emph> = 2.04, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.08) than daytime students (<emph>M</emph> = 1.83, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.02), <emph>t</emph>(1037) = 3.24, <emph>p</emph> =.001.</p> <p>Finally, under the new model students were required to prepare for classes by engaging with online materials – thus there was a stronger focus on <emph>self-directed learning</emph>. Non-parametric Friedman tests were used to analyse ranking data. There was a statistically significant difference in which platform students preferred using to access Murdoch's online content, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>) = 813.16, <emph>p </emph><.001. Median (IQR) ranks for laptops/PCs, tablets/iPads, and smartphones were 1, 3 and 2 respectively, indicating that students most often preferred to access online course material using their laptop or PC. This can be seen in Figure 1.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Student preferences over their method of access to online materials (ranked data).</p> <p>Not all students were engaging with the blended learning materials as was intended by the overall project. There was a statistically significant difference in when students indicated they were most likely to access online material, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>) = 444.82, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Median (IQR) ranks were 2 for 'prior to attending class', 'during class', and 'after class', indicating some variability across students as to when they preferred to access online material. This is contrary to the strategy for the blended learning project, which was primarily designed for students to access online material before the relevant class. The median (IQR) rank for 'never' was 4, indicating that students overwhelmingly preferred to access online material rather than not access it at all. This can be seen in Figure 2.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. #Student preferences for accessing online material associated with face to face classes (ranked data).</p> <p> <emph>Student Voices on the TNE project, 2018.</emph> Students surveyed in 2018 who commenced before 2017 were less satisfied with the timetable (<emph>M</emph> = 2.73, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.12) than students who commenced in 2017 and after (<emph>M</emph> = 3.12, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.06), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib582" id="ref59">582</reflink>) = 4.28, <emph>p</emph> <.001. In contrast to students in the 2017 sample, there were no differences between students who commenced before 2017 and those who commenced from 2017 onwards in familiarity with the LMS, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib590" id="ref60">590</reflink>) =.181, <emph>p</emph> =.857, accessing digital learning resources, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib589" id="ref61">589</reflink>) =.051, <emph>p</emph> =.959, or their familiarity with blended learning, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib590" id="ref62">590</reflink>) = 1.22, <emph>p</emph> =.21. There were also no differences between these two groups in how useful they felt the online resources were, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib588" id="ref63">588</reflink>) =.718, <emph>p</emph> =.473, or how satisfied they were with their Murdoch degree programme, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib589" id="ref64">589</reflink>) =.691, <emph>p</emph> =.490.</p> <p>Students who commenced in 2017 and after reported more Autonomy Satisfaction (<emph>M</emph> = 4.55, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.12), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib586" id="ref65">586</reflink>) = 2.11, <emph>p</emph> =.035, and less Autonomy Frustration (<emph>M</emph> = 4.02, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.06), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib587" id="ref66">587</reflink>) = 2.73, <emph>p</emph> =.006, than students who commenced before 2017 (<emph>M</emph> = 4.33, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.32 and <emph>M</emph> = 4.27, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.18, respectively). Finally, students who commenced before 2017 reported more Relatedness Frustration (<emph>M</emph> = 3.81, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.14) than students who commenced in 2017 and after (<emph>M</emph> = 3.59, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.15), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib588" id="ref67">588</reflink>) = 2.30, <emph>p</emph> =.022. This indicates that students who started before the blended learning approach was introduced were more frustrated and less satisfied with their programme of study.</p> <p>Adult learners who attended classes in the evenings found the learning resources more useful (<emph>M</emph> = 2.99, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.03) than daytime students (<emph>M</emph> = 2.80, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.09), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib589" id="ref68">589</reflink>) = 2.14, <emph>p</emph> =.033. They were also more satisfied with their Murdoch degree programme (<emph>M</emph> = 3.31, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.89) than the daytime students (<emph>M</emph> = 3.04, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.87), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib590" id="ref69">590</reflink>) = 3.81, <emph>p</emph> <.001. These findings were consistent with the 2017 Blended Learning Survey. Finally, evening students reported less Autonomy Frustration (<emph>M</emph> = 4.04, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.12) than daytime students (<emph>M</emph> = 4.23, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.13), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib588" id="ref70">588</reflink>) = 2.01, <emph>p</emph> =.045.</p> <p>We once again checked when students were engaging with online materials to determine whether they were accessing these materials before class as intended. Non-parametric Friedman tests were used to analyse ranking data. There was a statistically significant difference in which platform students preferred using to access Murdoch's online content, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>) = 494.84, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Median (IQR) ranks for laptops/PCs, tablets/iPads, and smartphones were 1, 3 and 2, respectively, indicating that students most often preferred to access online course material using their laptop or PC, followed by their smartphone. This was consistent with the findings in 2017 and can be seen in Figure 3.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. #Student preferences over their method of access to online materials (ranked data).</p> <p>There was a statistically significant difference in when students indicated they were most likely to access online material, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>) = 430.10, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Median (IQR) ranks were 2 for 'prior to attending class' and 'during class', and 3 for 'after class'. This indicated some variability across students as to when they preferred to access online material. In contrast to the findings in the 2017 survey, students were slightly more likely to access online materials either before or during class. A significant minority (20%) indicated they were most likely to access information after class, which is contrary to the blended learning strategy. The median (IQR) rank for 'never' was 4, indicating that students overwhelmingly preferred to access online material rather than not access it at all. The pattern of findings on this question can be found in Figure 4.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. #Student preferences for accessing online material associated with face to face classes (ranked data).</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-11">Discussion and conclusions</hd> <p>The preceding case study was conducted to assess a cohort of TNE students' perceptions of the changes from predominantly face-to-face to a blended mode of classroom delivery. Consistent with evidence-based approaches to learning, the new blended mode was based on active learning principles (Prince [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref73">34</reflink>]). We found that students who had experienced the face-to-face learning environment were generally less satisfied with the new blended learning mode. We also identified differences between daytime and evening students in satisfaction with resources, their degree programme, and the timetable. Finally, we found that merely introducing digital resources for review before classroom-based discussion did not guarantee that students were accessing the materials before class. However, more students used the digital learning materials before they attended class when we repeated the survey in 2018. This finding, together with the reduced satisfaction of students who had experienced the old face-to-face model, suggested that the benefits of a blended learning curriculum redesign can take time to emerge.</p> <p>Our evaluation indicates a complex set of responses to the introduction of blended learning content. The most likely reason for this was the concurrent introduction of a new delivery timetable. Overall, the findings seem to support the assertion that blended learning introduces greater flexibility, and this was particularly appreciated by our evening students. While there is a more positive response from mature and working students, the literature is rather mixed as well. While it might be assumed that mature-age students favour the flexibility of online resources, not all studies found a positive link. For example, while Deschacht and Goeman ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref74">10</reflink>]) found that blending in their course did improve results, they found it had a negative impact upon the retention of mature age learners and as we saw from the studies on self-regulation (Broadbent and Fuller-Tyszkiewicz [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref75">5</reflink>]) where students are not prepared for self-regulated or self-directed learning the same level of improvement in academic performance might not be noted.</p> <p>We note that the range of pedagogies adopted in Singaporean education do not always include flipped classroom modes, and the importance of student expectation and what they are used to does have an impact upon outcomes. For example, we were surprised by the finding that students who started their course after the blended learning programme had been introduced had higher levels of autonomy satisfaction, while students starting before had higher autonomy frustration. This suggests two possible hypotheses, either that the students who experienced the transition to blended learning may have found this transition difficult or alternatively that students with the expectation for face-to-face teaching did not want to move to blended mode and experienced frustration. While students studying from 2017 onwards chose the programme for the flexibility that the new blended learning approach provided them, students in this later cohort might have felt more control, therefore they had higher Autonomy satisfaction. However, it is important to consider that the blended learning co-occurred with the revised delivery mode to 4 h every two weeks, which may have contributed to the need frustration of the students who had experienced the previous timetable. Further studies that link self-determined motivation with changing modes of delivery might be able to shed more light on this observation.</p> <p>The current data collection had some limitations that are worth acknowledging here. Although data were collected across two time points, an opportunity was lost to conduct longitudinal modelling. We could not link individual student data across the two-time points. This means that we cannot conclude that changes in the attitude towards the new, blended learning project were being achieved within individual students. We can only conclude that change was occurring in the student cohort. Whether this was due to changing attitudes or simply to a changing student cohort is unclear from the study data.</p> <p>Even though blended learning approaches for TNE students can be transformational, we recognise that some students prefer more traditional teaching methods; especially if it is what they know already. As Croucher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref76">7</reflink>]) note, the delivery of learning via online methodologies is often perceived in Asian TNE markets such as Singapore as being inferior to face-to-face delivery. However, Croucher et al. also acknowledge that these perceptions may change as a consequence of the experience of COVID-19. As our data show, many students initially found that blended learning required a more self-disciplined approach and therefore more effort on their behalf. Rather than simply attending class and passively absorbing lectured content, students were required to engage with the online materials and lecture content while classes became a place and time to apply their knowledge actively. In this context, the 'flipped classroom' has proved to be invigorating and liberating for some students, but also stressful and confronting for others. The data across 2017 and 2018 surveys indicate that commencing students who did not have previous experience of the traditional model have settled more comfortably with the expectations of blended learning. These results suggest that the transition period between a traditional and blended learning pedagogy needs to be carefully scaffolded with appropriate support provided to students, particularly those who have studied under an older delivery model, to allow them to transition successfully.</p> <p>While the study has shown a mixed reaction from students to the changes in delivery, we believe that there were positive gains from introducing blended learning. While we do not know conclusively why our mature and working students reacted more positively to online resources, there is anecdotal evidence that their greater work and family responsibilities make them more favourably disposed to flexible study modes. Greater flexibility for the working, commuting students allows them to move between face-to-face classes and asynchronous learning contingent on work or family demands. Mature and working students also needed less support with self-directed learning than the day-time learners – perhaps as they were more used to study and independent learning patterns (e.g. Muljana and Luo [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref77">30</reflink>]). Lastly, our students, many of whom are studying Business and Information Technology courses, have good technical skills, and those in employment would have honed these technical skills – perhaps their capabilities from being in the workplace allowed them to build upon existing capabilities more naturally. Further study is required to ascertain other learning differences that emerge from the introduction of blended education.</p> <p>We believe that the self-report survey, including the needs satisfaction analysis can help to understand more about which cohorts are experiencing stress and help to guide developments in assessment and learning interventions. In future research, we would like to cross-validate the methods of this study in other universities and contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-12">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The study is covered under Murdoch University Ethics 2019/222. We thank all colleagues involved in the study for their inputs and support.</p> <hd id="AN0158963240-13">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0158963240-14"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Note that this figure includes Oxford Brookes 284,675 TNE students who are largely enrolled in the University's B.Sc (Hons) Degree in Applied Accounting with the Association of Chartered Accountants (ACCA)</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0158963240-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abou Naaj, M., M. Nachouki, and A. & Ankit. 2012. " Evaluating Student Satisfaction with Blended Learning in a Gender-Segregated Environment." Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 11 (1): 185 – 200.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref49" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Austrade. 2021. International Education Data, <ulink href="http://www.austrade.gov.au">www.austrade.gov.au</ulink> [3/02/21].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref44" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baepler, P., J. D. Walker, and M. Driessen. 2014. " It's not About Seat Time: Blending, Flipping, and Efficiency in Active Learning Classrooms." Computers & Education 78 : 227 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bannier, B. 2016. " Global Trends in Transnational Education." International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6 (1): 80 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref75" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Broadbent, J., and M. Fuller-Tyszkiewicz. 2018. " Profiles in Self-Regulated Learning and Their Correlates for Online and Blended Learning Students." Educational Technology Research and Development 66 (6): 1435 – 1455.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref41" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chowdhry, S., K. Sieler, and L. Alwis. 2014. " A Study of the Impact of Technology-Enhanced Learning on Student Academic Performance." Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice 2 (3): 3 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Croucher, G., K. Elliot, W. Locke, and E. Yencken. 2021. Australia's Higher Education Delivery Offshore and Online – Trends, Barriers and Opportunities, Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Melbourne, University of Melbourne.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref29" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Delnoij, L. E., K. J. Dirkx, J. P. Janssen, and R. L. Martens. 2020. " Predicting and Resolving Non-completion in Higher (Online) Education – a Literature Review." Educational Research Review 29 : 100313.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref16" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Education and Training. 2017. International Student Data, <ulink href="http://www.internationaleducation.gov.au">www.internationaleducation.gov.au</ulink>. Accessed November 14 2017. https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/2016-student-summary.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deschacht, N., and K. Goeman. 2015. " The Effect of Blended Learning on Course Persistence and Performance of Adult Learners: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis." Computers & Education 87 : 83 – 89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis, R., and S. J. Shannon. 2013. " Engaging with Blended Learning to Improve Students' Learning Outcomes." European Journal of Engineering Education 38 (4): 359 – 69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giannakis, M., and N. Bullivant. 2016. " The Massification of Higher Education in the UK: Aspects of Service Quality." Journal of Further and Higher Education 40 (5): 630 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo, P. J., J. Kim, and R. Rubin. 2014. How Video Production Affects Student Engagement: An Empirical Study of MOOC Videos. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on learning scale conference, 41–50. doi: 10.1145/2556325.2566239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, M., R. Barnett, and H. Barrett. 2017. " New Developments in Transnational Education and the Challenges for Higher Education Professional Staff." Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 21 (1): 11 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiles, R. 2018. Will Growth in Transnational Education Continue? Wonkhe Blog website. Accessed October 27 2018. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/the-latest-tne-trends/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hornsby, D. J., and R. Osman. 2014. " Massification in Higher Education: Large Classes and Student Learning." Higher Education 67 (6): 711 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Advisory Council. 2013. Australia – Educating Globally (' Chaney report'). Accessed June 2 2017. https://internationaleducation.gov.au/International-network/Australia/InternationalStrategy/theCouncilsReport/Documents/Australia-E2-Educating-Globall-FINAL-REPORT.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight, J. 2016. " Transnational Education Remodelled: Toward a Common TNE Framework and Definitions." Journal of Studies in International Education 20 (1): 34 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, M. 2016. Global Trends and Challenges in Higher Education. Presentation Slides. Bangkok : UNESCO. Accessed June 16 2016. <ulink href="http://www.slideshare.net/ColombiaAprende/panel-2-unesco-global-trends-and-challenges-of-higher-education-colombia-ver-2-whiteml">http://www.slideshare.net/ColombiaAprende/panel-2-unesco-global-trends-and-challenges-of-higher-education-colombia-ver-2-whiteml</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, Q., W. Peng, F. Zhang, R. Hu, Y. Li, and W. Yan. 2016. " The Effectiveness of Blended Learning in Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Journal of Medical Internet Research 18 (1): e2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longo, Y., M. Alcaraz-Ibáñez, and A. Sicilia. 2018. " Evidence Supporting Need Satisfaction and Frustration as Two Distinguishable Constructs." Psicothema 30 (1): 74 – 81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longo, Y., A. Gunz, G. J. Curtis, and T. Farsides. 2016. " Measuring Need Satisfaction and Frustration in Educational and Work Contexts: The Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (NSFS)." Journal of Happiness Studies 17 : 295 – 317. doi: 10.1007/s10902-014-9595-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lynne, M., O. Price, B. Leask, F. KP Dawood, and J. See Yin Lim. 2019. " Practices to Improve Collaboration by Reconfiguring Boundaries in Transnational Education." Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 16 (2): 1 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, S. 2011. " The Confucian Model of Higher Education in East Asia and Singapore." In Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific: Strategic Responses to Globalization, edited by S. Marginson, S. Kaur, and E. Sawir, 37 – 52. Dordrecht : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBurnie, G., and C. Ziguras. 2006. Transnational Education: Issues and Trends in Offshore Higher Education. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Means, B., Y. Toyama, R. Murphy, M. Bakia, and K. Jones. 2009. Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. US Department of Education, Jessup, MD, US.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mirriahi, N., D. Alonzo, and B. Fox. 2015. " A Blended Learning Framework for Curriculum Design and Professional Development." Research in Learning Technology 23. Access online: <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.28451">http://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.28451</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mok, K. H. 2008. " Singapore's Global Education Hub Ambitions: University Governance Change and Transnational Higher Education." International Journal of Educational Management 22 : 527 – 46. doi: 10.1108/09513540810895444.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mok, K. H., and D. Neubauer. 2016. " Higher Education Governance in Crisis: A Critical Reflection on the Massification of Higher Education, Graduate Employment and Social Mobility." Journal of Education and Work 29 : 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muljana, P. S., and T. Luo. 2019. " Factors Contributing to Student Retention in Online Learning and Recommended Strategies for Improvement: A Systematic Literature Review." Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 18 : 19–57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murdoch University. 2016. Annual Report 2015. Last accessed online on July 22 2021. https://murdoch-website-001.azurewebsites.net/docs/default-source/about-us/annual-reports/murdoch-university-annual-report-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=deb3b47_2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. 2020. Education at a Glance 2020, Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development, <ulink href="http://www.oecd.org">www.oecd.org</ulink> [date accessed 3/02/2021].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, J. A., C. Schumacher, and S. Arif. 2016. " Time Spent, Workload, and Student and Faculty Perceptions in a Blended Learning Environment." American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 80 : 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince, M. 2004. " Does Active Learning Work? " A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education 93 (3): 223 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> QAA (Quality Assurance Agency). 2017, September 25. TNE Growth at 39% Over Five Years, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Accessed November 14 2017. <ulink href="http://www.qaa.ac.uk">www.qaa.ac.uk</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasheed, R. A., A. Kamsin, and N. A. Abdullah. 2020. " Challenges in the Online Component of Blended Learning: A Systematic Review." Computers & Education 144 : 103701.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve, J. 2012. " A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement." In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, edited by S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, 149 – 71. New York, NY : Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. " Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-being." American Psychologist 55 (1): 68 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sorden, S. D., and I. I. Munene. 2013. " Constructs Related to Community College Student Satisfaction in Blended Learning." Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 12 (1): 251 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, L., Y. Tang, and W. Zuo. 2020. " Coronavirus Pushes Education Online." Nature Materials 19 (6): 687.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> TEQSA (The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency). 2017. Higher Education Standards. Canberra, Australia: TEQSA. Accessed November 14 2017. <ulink href="http://www.teqsa.gov.au">www.teqsa.gov.au</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tight, M. 2019. " Mass Higher Education and Massification." Higher Education Policy 32 (1): 93 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tynan, B., Y. Ryan, and A. Lamont-Mills. 2015. " Examining Workload Models in Online and Blended Teaching." British Journal of Educational Technology 46 (1): 5 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. 2014. Higher Education in Asia: Expanding Out, Expanding Up: The Rise of Graduate Education and University Research. Montreal : UNESCO Institute for Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vallée, A., E. Sorbets, A. Cariou, and J. Blacher. 2020. " Blended Learning Compared to Traditional Learning in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Journal of Medical Internet Research 22 (8): e16504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vo, H. M., C. Zhu, and N. A. Diep. 2017. " The Effect of Blended Learning on Student Performance at Course-Level in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis." Studies in Educational Evaluation 53 : 17 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waring, P. 2014. " Singapore's Global Schoolhouse Strategy: Retreat or Recalibration? " Studies in Higher Education 39 : 874 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkins, S. 2017. " Ethical Issues in Transnational Higher Education: The Case of International Branch Campuses." Studies in Higher Education 42 : 1385 – 1400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkins, S., and K. Juusola. 2018. " The Benefits and Drawbacks of Transnational Higher Education." The Australian Universities Review 60 (2): 68 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziguras, C., and G. McBurnie. 2011. " Transnational Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: From Distance Education to Branch Campus." In Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific: Strategic Responses to Globalization, edited by S. Marginson, S. Kaur, and E. Sawir, 105 – 22. Dordrecht : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sara de Freitas; Peter Waring; Heather E. Douglas; Guy J. Curtis and Stephen M. Ritchie</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib582" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib590" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib589" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib588" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib586" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib587" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref77"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1367887
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Delivering Blended Learning to Transnational Students: Students' Perceptions and Needs-Satisfaction
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22de+Freitas%2C+Sara%22">de Freitas, Sara</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Waring%2C+Peter%22">Waring, Peter</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Douglas%2C+Heather+E%2E%22">Douglas, Heather E.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1990-227X">0000-0002-1990-227X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Curtis%2C+Guy+J%2E%22">Curtis, Guy J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4174-6955">0000-0002-4174-6955</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ritchie%2C+Stephen+M%2E%22">Ritchie, Stephen M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2022 47(9):1890-1902.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Blended+Learning%22">Blended Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Need+Gratification%22">Need Gratification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developing+Nations%22">Developing Nations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Determination%22">Self Determination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Global+Approach%22">Global Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22International+Programs%22">International Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Learning%22">Electronic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Distance+Education%22">Distance Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Singapore%22">Singapore</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03075079.2021.1983533
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079<br />1470-174X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Transnational education (TNE) has grown significantly in developing countries but providing quality and scaling to large student numbers is a challenge for universities. Blended learning offers a potential solution for scaling at high quality. A large-scale project delivering a blended learning programme for TNE students in South-East Asia was evaluated. The aim of this research was to assess the students' perceptions of the changes from predominantly face-to-face to blended mode. A student voice survey based on self-determination theory was administered to participating students (n = 1718) to assess their needs, satisfaction and frustration levels. All students found the online resources useful. Students who had experienced the previous delivery of education experienced higher levels of frustration. Conversely, students commencing after the changes had been implemented reported higher levels of satisfaction and lower frustration. Furthermore, mature-age students who attended evening classes perceived the blended approach more positively.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1367887
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1367887
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03075079.2021.1983533
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 1890
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Blended Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Need Gratification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developing Nations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Determination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Global Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: International Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Electronic Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Distance Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Singapore
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Delivering Blended Learning to Transnational Students: Students' Perceptions and Needs-Satisfaction
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: de Freitas, Sara
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Waring, Peter
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Douglas, Heather E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Curtis, Guy J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ritchie, Stephen M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1470-174X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 47
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1