(NON) BLENDED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: VIEWS OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS ON (NON) BLENDED

Abstract

The article focuses the problem of using different learning models in modern conditions: blended learning as an integration of traditional (classroom/face-to-face) and distance learning, as well as traditional and distance learning in the absence of blended. The aim of the study is to identify and compare the views of participants in the educational process in the classical university on the choice of learning models organization in higher education depending on the ratio of traditional (classroom/face-to-face) and distance learning. The author included in the anonymous online survey 1373 respondents in 2020, including 1071 students, 140 PhD students, 172 university teachers; and 443 students in 2021; used IBM SPSS Statistics 23 for statistical analyses. The analysis of the survey results shows that Bachelor and Master students of the same year express similar views on choosing a model of organization for full-time and part-time higher education. A comparison of most other groups of respondents (students - teachers, students - PhD students, PhD students - teachers) shows a statistically significant difference (p≤0,05) in such views. The author describes some excesses of the critical value of the statistical criterion chi-square in the case of comparing some groups of students on the basis of the studied characteristics, which indicates a different view of their organization of full-time or part-time higher education. The analysis shows that in most cases there are no statistically significant differences in the comparison of individual samples on the same basis (gender, specialty, form of education). Traditional face-to-face learning for full-time and part-time education is mostly chosen in descending order of interest - students, teachers, PhD students. Blended learning, compared to distance and traditional, has an advantage in most respondents in all studied characteristics (educational/scientific level, gender, specialty, form of education). The author summarized the data of all groups (students, PhD students, university teachers) and formed options for non-mixing within the following intervals (in %): traditional face-to-face learning 12,9-29,3 (full-time form); 1,4-9,0 (part-time form); distance learning 0,6-7,9 (full-time form), 4,3-18,5 (part-time form); blended learning 62,8-85,0 (full-time form), 72,5-90,1 (part-time form). Some variants of blended were as follows (in%): mainly traditional education 25,3-44,8 (full-time form), 5,0-9,3 (part-time form); half 26,9-44,3 (full-time), 37,1-48,8 (part-time form); mostly distance learning 4,7-10,6 (full-time form), 24,4-46,4 (part-time form). Similar trends were found in all groups of respondents, namely: the choice decreases for traditional face-to-face, and increases for blended and distance learning in the transition from the model of learning organization for full-time to part-time higher education.