Learning Effectiveness and Students’ Perceptions in A Flexible Learning Course

Claude Müller 1 , Michael Stahl 1 , Mark Alder 1 ,  and Maximilian Müller 1
  • 1 Zurich University of Applied Sciences, , Winterthur, Switzerland


With flexible learning, students gain access and flexibility with regard to at least one of the following dimensions: time, place, pace, learning style, content, assessment or learning path. Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW) has launched a new flexible learning study format called FLEX, a blended learning design allowing students to be more flexible as to when and where they study. It reduces classroom learning time, replacing some of it with an e-learning environment for self-study that includes instructional videos. In a pilot phase, we conducted a semi-experimental study on the learning effectiveness of FLEX. Students’ perceptions of the new study format FLEX were found to be positive. In addition, the final test results of students in the FLEX programme were similar to those of other students, despite classroom learning time was reduced by about half.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. 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(1), 87-122. doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3

  • 2. Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 31(Supplement C), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001

  • 3. Chen, D.-T. (2003). Uncovering the provisos behind flexible learning. Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), 25-30.

  • 4. Deschacht, N., & Goeman, K. (2015). The effect of blended learning on course persistence and performance of adult learners. Comput. Educ., 87(C), 83-89. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.020

  • 5. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • 6. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.

  • 7. Horton, W. (2012). E-Learning by Design. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

  • 8. Li, K. C. (2014). How flexible do students prefer their learning to be? Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 9(1), 35-46.

  • 9. Li, K. C., & Wong, B. Y. Y. (2018). Revisiting the Definitions and Implementation of Flexible Learning. In K. C. Li, K. S. Yuen, & B. T. M. Wong (Eds.), Innovations in Open and Flexible Education (pp. 3-13). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

  • 10. 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. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16882

  • 11. Meyners, M. (2012). Equivalence tests – A review. Food Quality and Preference, 26(2), 231-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.003

  • 12. Molina, A. I., Jurado, F., de la Cruz, I., Redondo, M. Á., & Ortega, M. (2009). Tools to Support the Design, Execution and Visualization of Instructional Designs. Paper presented at the Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • 13. Oftedal, B., Urstad, K., Hvidsten, V., & Foss, B. (2015). Blended VS On-Campus Learning: A study of Exam Results in the Bachelor Degree in Nursing. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 11(3). Retrieved from https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/319

  • 14. Rindermann, H., & Amelang, M. (1994). Entwicklung und Erprobung eines Fragebogens zur studentischen Veranstaltungsevaluation. Empirische Pädagogik, 8(2), 131-151.

  • 15. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450.

  • 16. Samarawickrema, R. G. (2005). Determinants of student readiness for flexible learning: Some preliminary findings. Distance Education, 26(1), 49-66.

  • 17. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1997). Eight Common but False Objections to Discontinuation of Significance Testing in the Analysis of Research Data. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 37-64). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • 18. Stiller, K., Bachmaier, R., & Köster, A. (2013). NiceDesign4KMU. Online-Weiterbildung „Mediengestaltung”. Evaluationsbericht.

  • 19. Tucker, R., & Morris, G. (2012). By Design: Negotiating Flexible Learning in the Built Environment Discipline. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), n1. doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14404

  • 20. Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53(Supplement C), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.002

  • 21. Wellek, S. (2010). Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence and noninferiority (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  • 22. Wilson, K., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33-53.


Journal + Issues