Blended Learning in STEM and Non-STEM Courses: How do Student Performance and Perceptions Compare?

Ron Owston, Dennis N York, Taru Malhotra, Jirarat Sitthiworachart


Examined in this study is the question of whether students in STEM courses perform better and have more positive perceptions than students in non-STEM courses, when both are offered in the blended format. As part of a blended learning initiative, 6 STEM and 8 non-STEM university courses were redesigned using the blended format. Students (n = 318) were surveyed on perceptions of their blended experience and courses grades were compared. Results indicated that STEM students performed significantly higher than non-STEM students; however, STEM students did not perceive their courses as positively as non-STEM students. The conclusion was that focusing blended learning course redesign in STEM fields in higher education may be advantageous, although more research is needed to confirm the findings and to investigate why student perceptions were relatively low for STEM students.


STEM and non-STEM; blended learning; higher education; student performance; student perceptions

Full Text:



Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from

Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T., (2018). Blended learning and traditional learning: A comparative study of college mechanics courses. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 1-12.

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.

Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. In P. Kandlbinder, HERDSA Review of Higher Education Vol. 1 (pp. 5-22). Hammondville, Australia: HERDSA.

Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11.

Brooks, D. C. (2016). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology 2016 (Research Report). Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from

Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5), 7-11. Retrieved from

Castaño‐Muñoz, J., Duart, J. M., & Sancho‐Vinuesa, T. (2014). The Internet in face-to-face higher education: Can interactive learning improve academic achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 149-159.

Castle, S. R., & McGuire, C. J. (2010). An analysis of student self-assessment of online, blended, and face-to-face learning environments: Implications for sustainable education delivery. International Education Studies, 3(3), 36-40.

Chen, X. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. National Center for Education Statistics.

Choi, E. M. (2013). Applying inverted classroom to software engineering education. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3(2), 121-125.

Çirak Kurt, S., Yildirim, İ., & Cücük, E. (2018). The effects of blended learning on student achievement: A meta-analysis study. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 1-27.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Day, J. A., & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human-computer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4), 420–431.

Dolan, E. L., Lepage, G. P., Peacock, S. M., Simmons, E. H., Sweeder, R., & Wieman, C. (2016). Improving undergraduate STEM education at research universities: A collection of case studies. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation for Science Advancement. Retrieved from

Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(3), 1-16.

Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk and C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195-206). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Forte, J. A., & Root, V. (2011). To ITV or not to ITV: A comparison of hybrid and web-enhanced approaches to teaching a macro-course in human behavior in the social environment. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21(1), 82-96.

Garrison, R. D., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk and C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Green, M., (2007). Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966-2004 (NSF 07-307). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Goode, C. T., Lamoreaux, M., Atchison, K. J., Jeffress, E. C., Lynch, H. L., & Sheehan, E. (2018). Quantitative skills, critical thinking, and writing mechanics in blended versus face-to-face versions of a research methods and statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 45(2), 124-131.

Gundlach, E., Richards, K. A. R., Nelson, D., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2015). A comparison of student attitudes, statistical reasoning, performance, and perceptions for web-augmented traditional, fully online, and flipped sections of a statistical literacy class. Journal of Statistics Education, 23(1), 48-54.

Hill, T., Chidambaram, L., & Summers, J. D. (2017). Playing ‘catch up’ with blended learning: Performance impacts of augmenting classroom instruction with online learning. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(1), 54-62.

Kokkelenberg, E. C., & Sinha, E. (2010). Who succeeds in STEM studies? An analysis of Binghamton University undergraduate students. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 935-946.

Kumrow, D. E. (2007). Evidence-based strategies of graduate students to achieve success in a hybrid web-based course. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(3), 140–145.

Lederman, D. (2019, March 8). The mood brightens: A survey of presidents. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

Lian, J., & He, F. (2013). Improved performance of students instructed in a hybrid PBL format. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 41(1), 5–10.

Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27-42. Retrieved from

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.

Melton, B. F., Bland, H. W., & Chopak-Foss, J. (2009). Achievement and satisfaction in blended learning versus traditional general health course designs. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1-13. Retrieved from

Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15-23.

Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006-07. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from

Rahman, A. (2017). A blended learning approach to teach fluid mechanics in engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(3), 252-259.

Schunn, C. D., & Patchan, M. (2009). An evaluation of accelerated learning in the CMU open learning initiative course Logic & Proofs. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh. Retreived from

Shanahan, M., Burke, L. E. C., & Francis, K. (2016). Using a boundary object perspective to reconsider the meaning of STEM in Canadian context. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(2), 129-139.

Spanjers, I. A., Könings, K. D., Leppink, J., Verstegen, D. M., de Jong, N., Czabanowska, K., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2015). The promised land of blended learning: Quizzes as a moderator. Educational Research Review, 15, 59-74.

Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107, 113-126.

Uzun, A., & Senturk, A. (2010). Blending makes the difference: Comparison of blended and traditional instruction on students’ performance and attitudes in computer literacy. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(3), 196-207. Retreived from

Vargas-Madriz, F., & Nocente, N. (2016). Student engagement and satisfaction between different undergraduate blended learning courses. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2016 (pp. 1443-1448). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

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, 17-28.

Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836-1884.


Copyright (c) 2020 Ron Owston, Dennis N York, Taru Malhotra, Jirarat Sitthiworachart

License URL: