Dr.LeahFloresGoerke

Director,Commanders’ProfessionalDevelopmentSchool,

IraC.EakerCenterforProfessionalDevelopment

ACaseStudy

StudentSatisfaction

inTraditional,Online,

andHybridContinuing

EducationCourses

EAKER PAPERS
Air University

Lt Gen Anthony J. Cotton, Commander and President

Ira C. Eaker Center for Professional Development

Col Michael A. Grogan, Commander

Dr. Richard I. Lester, Dean of Academic Affairs
AIR UNIVERSITY

IRA C. EAKER CENTER 

FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Student Satisfaction in Traditional, Online, 

and Hybrid Continuing Education Courses 

A Case Study

Dr. Leah Flores Goerke

Director, Commanders’ Professional Development School, 

Ira C. Eaker Center for Professional Development

Eaker Paper No. 1

Air University Press

Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
Project Editor

Maranda Gilmore 

Copy Editor 

James Howard

Cover Art, Book Design, and Illustrations

Daniel Armstrong

Composition and Prepress Production

Vivian D. O’Neal 

Print Preparation and Distribution

Diane Clark

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Goerke, Leah Flores, 1964- author. | Ira C. Eaker Center for

Professional Development, issuing body. | Air University (U.S.). Press,

publisher.

Title: Student satisfaction in traditional, online, and hybrid continuing

education courses : a case study / Leah Flores Goerke.

Other titles: Eaker paper ; no. 1.

Description: First edition. | Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama : Air

University Press, 2018. | Series: Eaker Paper ; no. 1 | At head of title:

“Air University, Ira C. Eaker Center for Professional Development.” |

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2018006996| ISBN 9781585662814 | ISBN 158566281X

Subjects: LCSH: Military education—United States—Evaluation—Case 

studies. | Web-based instruction—United States—Evaluation—Case 

studies.

Classification: LCC U408 .G63 2018 | DDC 355.0071/5—dc23 | SUDOC D 

301.26/34:1

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018006996 <https://lccn.loc

.gov/2018006996>

Published by Air University Press in June 2018

Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or 

implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air University Press, Air University, 

the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any 

other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.

This Eaker Paper and others are available electronically at the AU 

Press website: https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/AUPress.

AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS

Director, Air University Press

Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell

Air University Press

600 Chennault Circle, Building 1405

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/AUPress/

Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/AirUnivPress

and

Twitter: https://twitter.com/aupress

Air University Press
iii

The Eaker Papers

The Eaker Papers and other scholarly works published by Air University 

Press provide independent analysis and constructive discussion on issues important to Air Force commanders, staffs, and other decision makers. Each 

paper can also be a valuable tool for defining further research. These studies 

are available electronically or in print via the Air University website at https://

www.airuniversity.af.edu/AUPress. To make comments about this paper or 

submit a manuscript to be considered for publication, please email Air University Press at aupress@us.af.mil.

The Eaker Papers are dedicated to developing, assessing, and promoting Air 

Force war fighters’ capacity for effective action through functionally aligned, 

relevant, and responsive education, training, research, and advisement.

These papers are published by Air University Press and broadly distributed 

throughout the US Air Force, the Department of Defense, and other government organizations, as well as to leading scholars, selected institutions of 

higher learning, public-policy institutes, and the media around the world.

v

Contents

List of Tables vii

About the Author ix

Abstract xi

Introduction 1

 Literature Review 2

 Method 6

 Results 9

 Discussion/Conclusions 21

 Appendix: Military School End of Course Evaluation 23

 Notes 27

 Bibliography 35

vii

List of Tables

Table

1 Course 1 mission accomplishment descriptive statistics 10

2 Course 1 mission accomplishment student responses 11

3 Course 1 course instruction descriptive statistics 12

4 Course 1 course instruction student responses 12

5 Course 1 course management descriptive statistics 14

 6 Course 1 course management student responses 14

 7 Course 1 course value descriptive statistics 15

8 Course 1 course value student responses 15

9 Course 2 mission accomplishment descriptive statistics 17

10 Course 2 mission accomplishment student responses 17

11 Course 2 course instruction descriptive statistics 18

12 Course 2 course instruction student responses 18

13 Course 2 course management descriptive statistics 19

14 Course 2 course management student responses 19

15 Course 2 course value descriptive statistics 20

16 Course 2 course value student responses 20

17 Themes by course and evaluation area 21

ix

About the Author

Dr. Leah Flores Goerke is the director of the Commanders’ Professional 

Development School and course director for the USAF Senior Materiel 

Leader Course at the Ira C. Eaker Center for Professional Development, Air 

University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

Dr. Goerke served 20 years as an Air Force officer, educator, engineer, and 

program manager with 11 years of engineering and acquisition program 

management experience to include program management activities in three 

major weapon system program offices. Duties included the application of 

policies, practices, regulations, and laws concerning acquisition management 

and sustainment processes and initiatives. Her experiences ranged from programming and budgeting responsibilities in major weapon system programs, 

to conducting nuclear airblast simulation analyses in a laboratory environment. She has served the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

Department of Defense (DOD), and Air Force organizations that govern, interface with, and influence life cycle management of national and DOD assets.

Dr. Goerke has 17 years of military and civilian experience as an educator, 

serving as an Air Force Reserve Officers’ Training Corps instructor, Air 

Command and Staff College instructor, and Eaker Center instructor. As a 

traditional and online instructor, she taught various subjects ranging from 

national security to leadership development. As the director for the Commanders’ Professional Development School she is responsible for orchestrating all activities for developing and executing precommand education programs for wing commanders and vice commanders, group commanders, 

and senior materiel leaders.

xi

Abstract

Instructors of military continuing education courses transitioned traditional classroom leadership courses to fully online and hybrid formats that 

combined online and face-to-face instruction. No evaluation of student satisfaction during the transition was conducted using research-based practices. 

The purpose of this mixed methods research study was to examine student 

satisfaction of traditional, hybrid, and online delivery of two military continuing education courses using research-based practices. This empirical 

study was grounded in Malcolm S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson’s adult learning theory as well as Terry Anderson’s and Gilly 

Salmon’s online learning theories. Data from 96 course evaluations from students who completed traditional, online, and hybrid versions of two military 

continuing education courses were analyzed. Kruskal-Wallis analyses of variance tests were used to examine student satisfaction ratings for significant 

differences. Student satisfaction narrative data were analyzed using thematic 

analysis and axial coding. There were no significant differences in student 

satisfaction ratings among course delivery methods. Course relevance to 

jobs, instructor quality, interactivity, and student support were found as common themes in the student comments. The findings of this study would suggest traditional courses could be transitioned to online and hybrid delivery 

with particular attention to ensuring the courses contain job-related content, 

high quality instructors incorporate interactive activities, and school staff 

personnel provide robust support. Online and hybrid versions of traditional 

leadership courses may enable DOD military and civilians serving abroad or 

in deployed locations to keep up with their professional development.

1

Introduction

Because of declining budgets and reduced personnel resources, senior military officials are encouraging the use of online technologies to provide costeffective solutions for military professional development.1

 As a result, military 

course providers are rapidly transitioning traditional classroom courses to 

online and hybrid formats that combine online and face-to-face instruction. 

Little comparative research has been published that addresses the viability of 

online delivery formats as a replacement for traditional military continuing 

education courses. To address this need, two military continuing education 

courses transitioning from traditional delivery to online and hybrid delivery 

were examined in this study.

Consistent with the services’ visions, instructors at the Military School 

(pseudonym), a major provider of military continuing education courses, 

initiated the development of online versions of two traditional courses in 

2011. Course 1 (pseudonym) transitioned to a fully online course, and 

Course 2 (pseudonym) transitioned into a hybrid course that combined 

face-to-face classroom instruction with online coursework. These courses 

were a part of professional development programs for military officers and 

management-level civilians selected to assume midlevel leadership roles in 

base organizations.

From 2009 to 2011, the Military School instructors offered these courses 

exclusively as two-week traditional classroom courses for male military, female military, and civilian personnel who were assuming midlevel management responsibilities. The students temporarily relocated to the Military 

School from their home military bases to complete the courses. The first week 

of the traditional course focused on general leadership and management topics including doctrine, leadership and management principles, and critical 

thinking skills and their applications. The second week included specific topics such as military personnel support, manpower and organization operations, and civilian personnel support. The Military School offered the courses 

two to five times a year to classes ranging in size from 10–25 students.

Beginning in 2012, the Military School instructors piloted online and hybrid versions of these courses. In 2012, Course 1 instructors transitioned the 

entire two-week course to online delivery. In 2013, Course 2 instructors replaced the first week of the course with 40 hours of online coursework addressing general leadership topics. The second week of Course 2 was replaced 

with five days of traditional face-to-face classroom instruction at the Military 

School that covered the job-specific leadership topics.
2

As part of the school’s course administration procedures, the Military 

School instructors have been collecting and archiving student satisfaction 

data for both courses under examination since 2007 using an end of course 

evaluation (EOCE) (see appendix). Military School instructors continued to 

administer the same EOCE to students taking the online and hybrid version 

of both courses under examination. However, Military School personnel did 

not conduct formal comparative analyses of student satisfaction data as 

courses were transitioned from traditional to online and hybrid course delivery. The collection of these survey data for both courses as they transitioned 

to different delivery methods presented an opportunity to compare student 

satisfaction data from two courses offered in traditional, hybrid, and fully online versions.

Literature Review

Theoretical Framework

Adult learning theory. Malcolm S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton III, and 

Richard A. Swanson’s theory of adult learning (hereafter: “Knowles’ theory”) 

provided the theoretical foundation for examining student satisfaction in 

traditional, online, and hybrid courses. In computer-based instruction, the 

adult learner characteristics of self-direction and self-motivation detailed in 

Knowles’ theory are critical to successful course completion.2

Self-direction was described as when a person matures beyond a dependence on others to directing his or her own activities, to include participating 

in learning opportunities.3

 Online instruction, especially asynchronous activities, requires the learner to be self-directed because activities are not monitored by an instructor in real time and are conducted at the learner’s own 

pace. Instructional modules must be designed to account for this autonomy 

and, therefore, must be learner-centered and encourage a high degree of selfdirection. The design and support of learning modules must take into account 

the online student’s degree of self-direction.4

 The online portion of the courses 

that were studied consisted of modules that required students to complete 80 

percent of the coursework asynchronously. This study examined differences 

in student satisfaction data for traditional, online, and hybrid courses. It was 

anticipated student satisfaction might be higher for the online and hybrid 

courses based on a greater opportunity for self-direction.

Because of the high percentage of asynchronous activities in the courses 

being studied, self-motivation is also critical to student success. Self-motivation is when adults are motivated to learn by internal factors rather than 
3

external ones.5 As such, adults, whether motivated by an interest in personal 

development, the prospect of financial gain, or professional advancement, 

will most likely choose to engage in a future learning opportunity. Students 

in the research sample were transitioning from working-level to managementlevel positions and were required to successfully complete the courses being 

studied for both professional advancement and financial gain. Raymond J. 

Wlodkowski described this conditioned propensity as a deep social value 

and force. Similarly, Vivian W. Mott, as cited by Wlodkowski, pointed out 

that adults are more prone to choose learning opportunities relevant to their 

jobs.6

Online learning theory. Anderson proposed, while adult learning theories such as Knowles’ theory continue to apply to online learning, technology 

introduces new challenges such as online community building and virtual 

interaction in the absence of physical social cues.7

 Rena M. Palloff and Keith 

Pratt went so far as to state instructors must abdicate “our tried and true techniques that may have served us well in the face-to-face classroom in favor of 

experimentation with new technologies and assumptions.”8

 Gilly Salmon postulated creating a sense of community online is vastly different than managing group dynamics in the face-to-face classroom.9

To address these challenges, Knowles’ theory emphasized the importance 

of aligning several factors including self-direction to create successful computer-based instruction.10 Anderson’s theory of online learning focusing on 

learner interactions with other learners, the instructor, and the content of 

the course, suggested successful online learning depended on at least one of 

these types of interactions operating at a high level.11 In Salmon’s theory, 

learning-centered e-moderators who emphasized collaborative learning and 

community building replaced content-centered instructors in the online 

classroom.12

Comparative Research in Traditional and Online Education Settings

In military education settings, studies conducted by a single researcher 

were found that addressed traditional and online course delivery. Anthony R. 

Artino examined the relationship between military students’ personal factors 

and their choice of instructional format.13 In another study, instructional design was identified by Artino as the strongest contributor to overall student 

satisfaction with online courses.14 Artino also found students were more satisfied with online learning tasks if they were perceived to be interesting, useful, 

and important. In a third study, Artino suggested a higher level of online in-
4

structor support was necessary to overcome low student critical thinking 

skills and student procrastination.15

In civilian education settings, a number of researchers have conducted 

comparative research comparing student satisfaction in traditional, hybrid, 

and online classroom settings. Results from 20 comparative studies were 

mixed. Only three studies—conducted by Amy J. Bayliss and Stuart J. Warden, Cassandra DiRienzo and Gregory Lilly, and Reginald O. York—found no 

significant differences in student perceptions about the efficacy of traditional, 

online, and hybrid courses, the civilian equivalent to course mission accomplishment.16 The remainder of the comparative studies reported both favorable and unfavorable perceptions of hybrid and online courses when compared with those offered face-to-face.

In the area of course management, flexibility and convenience of courses 

offered in the hybrid and online instructional formats were consistently identified in recent comparative studies as a contributor to favorable student perceptions. Pamela Lam and Sarbari Bordia identified instructional design as a 

top consideration in generating positive perceptions among graduate students taking an online course.17 Modular designs enabled students to view 

course information on demand and multiple times to reinforce important 

concepts in the content areas covered.18 Instructional design was also identified by Artino in 2008 as the strongest contributor to overall student satisfaction with online courses. Artino also found that students were more satisfied 

with online learning tasks if they were perceived to be interesting, useful, and 

important.19 Business professionals, police officers, and undergraduate students identified flexibility and convenience as the things they liked most 

about hybrid and online education.20 An online course was also shown to enable students hindered by physical constraints to take a hybrid course.21

In contrast, poor course and instructional design practices were identified 

by researchers as contributing to unfavorable student satisfaction in online 

and hybrid courses. Researchers found that replicating classroom lectures by 

posting notes online or employing noninteractive online lecturing techniques 

detracted from the quality of distance education courses.22 A perceived increase in workload for online and hybrid courses also lowered student satisfaction.23 Finally, course technology challenges, computer availability, and 

internet access issues negatively affected student satisfaction with online and 

hybrid courses.24 David Starr-Glass reported deployed military students noted 

technical issues detracted from the learning experience.25

Poorly designed student-student interaction learning opportunities, or a 

lack thereof, also contributed to negative student perceptions. J. B. Arbaugh, 

Michael R. Godfrey, Marianne Johnson, Birgit Leisen Pollock, Bruce Nien-
5

dorf, and William Wresch reported lower student satisfaction ratings across 

various business disciplines for online courses due to a lack of peer interaction.26 In both of his studies, Brian W. Donavant reported a lack of peer interaction in a police continuing education course offered online was the element 

most disliked by the students.27 Lisa Kirtman similarly reported negative 

comments from graduate students pursuing an online master’s degree in education due to perceived lower peer interactions.28 One student in Kirtman’s 

study commented, “At times you have questions that you don’t know you have 

until someone else in class asks them.”29 Cara Rabe-Hemp and Susan Woollen 

tied significantly lower peer interactions with lower student satisfaction ratings for an online criminal justice course.30

When considering course instruction, the quality of instructor-to-student 

interaction was found by researchers to be critical to student perceptions of 

hybrid and online courses. Lam and Bordia identified student-instructor interactions as the most important contributing factor to positive student perceptions of an online course “to actively share, explore, and discuss ideas and 

insights” and “build confidence in their ability to understand key concepts.”31

Sidney R. Castle and Chad J. McGuire correlated the highest levels of student-instructor interaction ratings with the highest levels of student satisfaction in hybrid and online courses.32 In a 2008 study conducted by Jon Lim, 

May Kim, Steve S. Chen, and Cynthia E. Ryder, hybrid and online students 

reported higher quality interactions with their professors contributed to 

higher course satisfaction ratings when compared with those of students 

taking the traditional version of the same course.33 Nanette P. Napier, Sonal 

Dekhane, and Stella Smith also identified student interactions with the professor as contributing to positive student perceptions of a hybrid computer 

course.34 Agi Horspoole and Carsten Lange found students in both traditional and online courses perceived they enjoyed high quality communication with their instructors.35 Siu-Man Raymond Ting and Laura M. Gonzalez 

found student perceptions of online learning were positive due to the effects 

of online interactions with their instructors and each other.36 Suzanne Young 

and Heather E. Duncan similarly found there was a connection between 

higher course satisfaction levels and higher student-instructor interactions, 

though their study found higher satisfaction levels among those enrolled in 

traditional courses.37

In a study comparing a traditional version of a course and two online versions of the same course, Joe Nichols found fewer students were satisfied with 

the online version of the course because it minimized instructor involvement.38 Donavant and LaDonna Hale, Emily A. Mirakian, and David B. Day 

reported a lack of student-facilitator interaction detracted from the perceived 
6

quality of an online course.39 In his 2009 study, Artino suggested a higher level 

of online instructor support was necessary to overcome low student critical 

thinking skills and student procrastination.40

Method

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate hybrid and online delivery of two 

Military School courses after they were transitioned from traditional delivery 

by analyzing student satisfaction data. A mixed methods approach was used 

combining analyses of student satisfaction numerical data narrative comments. The results of this study may provide insight into more effective ways 

to transition courses from traditional to hybrid and online delivery. The study 

may also add to the sparse body of comparative research literature addressing 

civilian and military continuing education, while, at the same time, offering 

senior military leaders, faculty, and support staff insights from comparisons 

made in a military education setting. The following research question guided 

the study.

RQ1: Is there a significant difference in student satisfaction after 

the Military School’s Course 1 and Course 2 transitioned 

from traditional delivery to online and hybrid delivery?

H01: There is no significant difference in student satisfaction after the Military School’s Course 1 and Course 

2 transitioned from traditional delivery to online 

and hybrid delivery.

H11: There is a significant difference in student satisfaction when the Military School’s Course 1 and Course 

2 transitioned from traditional delivery to online 

and hybrid delivery.

RQ2: What are Military School students’ perceptions of the 

traditional, online, and hybrid versions of Course 1 and 

Course 2?
7

Research Design

Setting and sample. The research study was conducted at the Military 

School, a provider of military continuing education courses. The two courses 

under examination were part of leadership professional development programs for midcareer officers and midlevel management civilians working for 

the DOD, the population of this study. Prior to 2012, the courses were offered 

once a year as two-week traditional courses at the Military School. Both 

courses were intended to prepare male and female military and civilian personnel to lead midlevel military organizations.

Twenty-four students graduated from Course 1 in 2010 from the last traditional classroom course offering before it transitioned to an online course. In 

2012, the online version replaced both weeks of traditional instruction with 

eight weeks of online course work. Nine students graduated from the initial 

offering of the online version and completed the EOCE. In 2013, four students graduated from the second offering of the online version and completed 

the EOCE. Eleven students graduated from Course 2 in 2010 from the last 

traditional classroom course offering. In 2013, this course was transitioned to 

a hybrid format that combined four weeks of prerequisite online course work 

with five days of traditional classroom instruction at the Military School. Sixteen students graduated from the first hybrid class and completed course 

evaluations. 

Ninety-six course evaluations were analyzed from course offerings in 2010 

immediately preceding the transitions and course offerings in 2012–2013 

shortly after the transitions from traditional to online and hybrid formats. 

This sample included male and female military and civilian students who 

took these leadership continuing education courses offered at the Military 

School who are midlevel managers and who were required to complete this 

training shortly after assuming their positions.

Convenience sampling was appropriate for this study because the results 

were primarily required for Military School stakeholder decision making.41

The research sample included military and civilian students who had participated in either traditional, online, or hybrid courses. Because the EOCE was 

taken anonymously, it was not possible to distinguish between military and 

civilian respondents. Therefore, research was reviewed in traditional and online educational settings to see if this external factor was going to affect the 

results of this study. In a military education setting, Bradley Barker and David 

Brooks and Steven W. Schmidt and Mott concluded online training was effective for both military and civilian learners.42 Researchers also found both mobile learning and traditional classroom learning were effective for both mili-
8

tary personnel and civilians.43 In a civilian university environment, Lisa T. 

Fall, Stephanie Kelly, and Scott Christen found no significant differences in 

motivation to learn between military and civilian students when taking online courses.44 Starr-Glass also found no significant differences in values and 

concerns expressed relating to experiences in online courses between military 

and nonmilitary online students.45

Data collection. The survey instrument used in this study was the existing 

Military School EOCE to collect student course satisfaction data for all traditional, online, and hybrid courses. It has been used for the courses under examination since 2009. The Military School’s institutional effectiveness personnel review and validate the instrument annually. There are nine Likert 

scaled statements in the areas of course mission accomplishment, course 

management, course instruction, and course value (see appendix). At the 

completion of each Military School course, instructors provide a link to the 

online EOCE for students to complete the evaluation. Traditional classroom 

students are asked to complete the EOCE prior to departing the classroom. 

Hybrid and online students are given three days to complete the EOCE online. It typically takes 10–15 minutes for a student to complete this assessment. Students are asked to rate the nine statements included as strongly 

agree, agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. 

Each statement is followed by an open-ended question giving students an opportunity to provide narrative comments.

The Military School’s institutional effectiveness personnel collect the data, 

assimilate the results, and provide summary reports that consist of aggregated 

data by statement to Military School course instructors. The information in 

the summary report is not traceable to individual respondents. The Military 

School defines a successful course as one in which: 

• at least 90 percent of the respondents strongly agree, agree, or slightly 

agree that the course mission was accomplished, 

• the instructor delivered the course content very effectively, 

• the course was managed very effectively, 

• and the course was deemed by students to be highly valuable in their 

professional career development. 

Archival raw data, which included student numerical ratings and narrative 

comments, used in this evaluation study were provided by the Military 

School’s Institutional Effectiveness office and will be made available at the 

request of future researchers.
9

Data analysis methods. For the quantitative portion of this study, Likert 

scaled student satisfaction data from 96 student evaluations were analyzed 

using STATDISK 11.1.0. Descriptive statistics such as mean, median, mode, 

standard deviation, and frequency distributions were calculated for four 

EOCE statements pertaining to the areas of most concern to the Military 

School’s stakeholders: course mission accomplishment, course instruction, 

course management, and course value. STATDISK 11.1.0 was used to analyze 

data distributions and determined these data were not normally distributed. 

As a result, nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis of the variance tests was 

used.46 The probability level was set at 0.05, the typical value set by educational researchers.47 The findings of the quantitative portion of the study addressed the first research question, which was to determine whether or not 

there were significant differences in student satisfaction for traditional, online, and hybrid versions of Course 1 and Course 2.

For the qualitative portion of the study, narrative student comments were 

analyzed using axial coding methods and grouping qualitative data into 

themes.48 Data were examined initially using the categories that were of most 

concern to the Military School stakeholders: course mission accomplishment, 

course instruction, course management, and course value.

To determine validity and trustworthiness of qualitative data a peer review 

of the coded data was conducted.49 A Military School faculty member with a 

doctorate and experience with using qualitative research methods completed 

a peer review of the coded student narrative data. This faculty member was 

not affiliated with the courses under examination. No additional changes 

were recommended by the peer reviewer.

Results

Course 1 

In 2012, the traditional version of Course 1 was divided into two online 

courses. The first online portion, the Basic Skills Course (pseudonym), covered the fundamentals of leading a midlevel military organization. The second online portion, the Specialized Skills 1 Course (pseudonym), covered 

specific topics from the second week of the original course. Twenty-three students completed the pretransition traditional Course 1 in 2010 and the EOCE. 

Thirteen students completed the posttransition online Specialized Skills 1 

Course in 2012 and 2013, and the EOCE. The results were combined to develop a viable sample size for analysis. Thirty-two students completed the on-
10

line Basic Skills Course and the EOCE in 2012. All students were from the 

first specialized career field under examination.

In 2013, students taking the Basic Skills EOCE were drawn from a mix of 

midlevel managers working in the two specialized career fields under examination. The students took the survey anonymously online and the results were 

aggregated to ensure anonymity. Therefore, it was not possible to determine a 

breakout of responses from the students by career field.

Mission accomplishment. Military School institutional effectiveness personnel define mission accomplishment as achieving course objectives which 

are contained in the course mission statement. All student survey ratings met 

the Military School’s criteria of slightly agree or higher to the statement 

“Based on the mission statement above, I believe the course accomplished its 

mission.” There were no significant differences among the three course means 

for student satisfaction of mission accomplishment H (2, N = 68) = .072, p = 

.96. Means for the three courses are shown in table 1. The p value was set at 

.05. The null hypothesis could not be rejected. This finding supported recent 

research comparing online and traditional instructional formats of a graduate 

nurse anesthesia course. Laura Palmer, John M. O’Donnell, Dianxu Ren, and 

Richard Henker found even though the online course student satisfaction 

mean for the accomplishment of course objectives was higher than the traditional course mean, the difference was not statistically significant.50

Table 1. Course 1 mission accomplishment descriptive statistics

Course Delivery mode n M SD

Course 1 Traditional 23 5.391 0.583

Basic Skills Course Online 32 5.406 0.665

Specialized Skills 1 Course Online 13 5.462 0.519

Note: In this table and all subsequent tables, n = number of students, M = mean, and SD = standard deviation.

Examination of student responses to the question “Why do you feel the 

course did or did not accomplish its mission?” revealed possible course features that may have contributed towards maintaining course quality across 

different delivery methods. Table 2 is a summary of student responses and 

emergent themes. 
11

Table 2. Course 1 mission accomplishment student responses

Theme Sample responses

Traditional Course 1

Relevance to job

We were taught critical elements we need as . . . leaders. 

This helps me to do a better job. There were some (areas) 

that I feel weren’t relevant to us as [leaders]. Not enough 

meat on the actual programs we are responsible for. Provided tools on areas ... to perform the duties.

Online Basic Skills Course

Relevance to job

Talked about all the important issues for a (leader). Great 

tools offered for new (leaders). Provided the tools and 

methodology to accomplish a (leader’s) duties and responsibilities. It made me think differently about my job.

Interaction Interaction with peers was great. Networking. Weekly 

class sessions that were interactive.

Online Specialized Skills 1 Course

Instructor quality

The instructors made the difference. The instructors were 

great. Great instructors.

Students identified relevance to their jobs for the traditional Course 1 and 

online Basic Skills Course. The themes of interaction and instructor quality 

were evident in student comments for the online Basic Skills and Specialized 

Skills 1 courses. These findings were consistent with the study’s theoretical 

framework. Mott, as cited by Wlodkowski, and Knowles, Holton, and Swanson concluded adults are more prone to choose learning opportunities relevant to their jobs.51 Anderson emphasized the importance of establishing a 

high level of student interactions with each other and with their instructors in 

an online learning environment.52

Course instruction. All of the student survey ratings met the Military 

School’s criteria of slightly agree or higher to the statement “Instruction during this course was delivered effectively.” There were no significant differences 

among the three course means for student satisfaction of instructor effectiveness H (2, N = 68) = 2.674, p = .26. Means for the three courses are shown in 

table 3. The p value was set at .05. The null hypothesis could not be rejected. 

This finding supported prior research comparing student satisfaction means 

of instructor effectiveness for online and traditional instructional formats. In 

a recent study comparing online and traditional formats of a sociology course, 

Adam Driscoll, Karl Jicha, Andrea N. Hunt, Lisa Tichavsky, and Gretchen 

Thompson found there were no significant differences in student ratings of 

instructor effectiveness.53 Palmer, O’Donnell, Ren, and Henker found student 

satisfaction ratings of instructor effectiveness did not significantly differ in a 

graduate nurse anesthesia course offered in online and traditional formats.54

Hale, Mirakian, and Day reported student satisfaction ratings of instructor 
12

effectiveness in a pharmacology course did not significantly differ for online 

and traditional course versions.55

Table 3. Course 1 course instruction descriptive statistics

Course Delivery mode n M SD

Course 1 Traditional 23 5.261 0.619

Basic Skills Course Online 32 5.500 0.568

Specialized Skills 1 Course Online 13 5.615 0.506

Examination of student responses to the questions “Why do you feel the 

instruction for this course was or was not delivered effectively,” “What were 

the best area(s) of instruction,” and “What area(s) of instruction do you consider to be least effective?” provided additional insight. Table 4 is a summary 

of the student responses. 

Table 4. Course 1 course instruction student responses

Theme Sample responses

Traditional Course 1

Relevance to job Most helpful in enabling me to do my job better. Key 

to our position. Best prepared briefers with...details for 

our duties. (Guest lecturer) failed to relate to the 

responsibilities of the (job). (Guest lecturer’s) presentation was not applicable to the (job).

Instructor quality All instructors were professional and knowledgeable. 

(Guest lecturer) was unable to answer specific questions. (Guest lecturer) was not appropriate for the topic. Insulting (guest lecturer).

Online Basic Skills Course

Relevance to job Important part of managing. These were the duties that 

new (leaders) would most benefit from. Applied directly to many of the issues I face.

Instructor quality Instructors were always engaging and on point. 

Responsive to student inputs. (Instructors got) students 

to use critical thinking and analysis. (Instructor) was 

great! Enjoyed instructor. I liked the use of different 

instructors.

Interaction Allowed for interaction, not only with the instructors/

facilitators, but also with students. Instructors were 

engaging.

Online Specialized Skills 1 Course

Instructor quality The instructors made the difference. Strong, competent, 

and committed facilitators. The instructors were always 

available during and after the weekly webinars. The 

instructors were interactive with the groups. (The 

instructor) kept the motivation going.
13

The theme of instructor quality emerged in student responses for all three 

courses. Students also valued engaging instructors. However, the quality of 

guest lecturers appeared to be lacking. This finding was consistent with the 

study’s theoretical framework and prior research. Salmon’s online learning 

theory associated successful online course instruction with engaging instructors known as e-moderators.56 Nichols found positive student perceptions of 

traditional and online instruction result when the teaching is done by knowledgeable, insightful, and personable instructors.57

Relevance to job and interaction were also noted multiple times in student 

responses. These finding supported the study’s theoretical framework and 

prior studies that compared traditional and online instruction. Laura A. Diaz 

and Florentina E. Entonado reported positive student comments pertaining 

to interaction in both traditional and online versions graduate course.58 In a 

study of online continuing education courses in law enforcement, students 

identified the lack of instructor-student interaction as the thing they disliked 

most in online education and why they preferred traditional instruction 

modes.59 In Kirtman’s study, students commented on the lack of peer interactions as notably different when comparing online and in-class instruction.60

Lam and Bordia reported students in their study preferred more student-instructor interaction in an online class to overcome the challenge of not being 

collocated.61

Course management. All student ratings shown except one met the Military School’s criteria of slightly agree or higher to the statement “The course 

was managed very effectively by the course director.” There were no significant differences among the three course means for student satisfaction of 

course management. Means for the three courses are shown in table 5. The p

value was set at .05. The differences were not significant, H (2, N = 68) = .605, 

p = .74. The null hypothesis could not be rejected. This finding supports research comparing student satisfaction means of course management for online and traditional instructional formats. Driscoll, Jicha, Hunt, Tichavsky, 

and Thompson found student satisfaction ratings of course management did 

not significantly differ in a sociology course offered in online and traditional 

formats.62 In a recent study comparing online and traditional formats of a 

graduate nurse anesthesia course, Palmer, O’Donnell, Ren, and Henker reported there were no significant differences in student ratings of course management.63 In a continuing education course for university personnel preparing to assist visually impaired students, Dae Shik Kim, Helen Lee, and Annette 

Skellenger reported student satisfaction ratings of course management did 

not significantly differ for online and on-campus versions.64
14

Table 5. Course 1 course management descriptive statistics

Course Delivery mode n M SD

Course 1 Traditional 23 5.652 0.573

Basic Skills Course Online 32 5.688 0.535

Specialized Skills 1 Course Online 13 5.846 0.376

Table 6 summarizes student responses to the question “Why do you believe 

the course was or was not managed effectively by the course director?” Student support and instructor quality themes were found in the traditional 

Course 1 and online Basic Skills Course. Students in the online Specialized 

Skills 1 Course reported instructor quality as a notable course feature. 

Table 6. Course 1 course management student responses

Theme Sample responses

Traditional Course 1

Student support Anytime we had an issue, they were all over it trying to 

get it resolved. I was very impressed by the assistance 

received. If you had a question or problem they were 

willing and ready to take care of it for you.

Online Basic Skills Course

Student support Always available to help and answer questions. Everyone 

was so understanding and did all they could to help us. 

When there was a technical issue (course director) found 

a way around it.

Online Specialized Skills 1 Course

Instructor quality Kept us focused and on track. Strong influence and motivator. Available all the time. Lessons were well explained 

and discussions were on point. Instructor made the difference.

All three themes were consistent with the study’s theoretical framework 

and prior research findings. Napier, Dekhane, and Smith’s research identified 

student support as critical to the successful transition of a traditional computer course to hybrid instruction.65 Lam and Bordia similarly concluded student support was essential for online courses.66 Nichols found positive student perceptions of traditional and online courses resulted when the teaching 

was done by knowledgeable, insightful, and personable instructors.67

Course value. All except one of the student survey ratings met the Military 

School’s criteria of slightly agree or higher to the statement “The education 

received was highly valuable to my professional career development.” There 

were no significant differences among the three course means for student sat-
15

isfaction of course value. Means for the three courses are shown in table 7. 

The differences were not significant, H (2, N = 68) = .133, p = .936. The null 

hypothesis could not be rejected. These results do not support earlier assertions based on Knowles’ theory of self-direction and self-motivation in an 

online course setting.68 However, they support prior research findings of no 

significant differences in student satisfaction between online and traditional 

courses.69

Table 7. Course 1 course value descriptive statistics

Course Delivery mode n M SD

Course 1 Traditional 23 5.522 0.511

Basic Skills Course Online 32 5.406 0.712

Specialized Skills 1 Course Online 13 5.462 0.519

In student responses to the EOCE question “Why do you feel the education 

you received was or was not highly valuable to your professional career development?” the theme of relevance to job for the traditional Course 1 and online Basic Skills was found. A sample of student comments is summarized in 

table 8.

Table 8. Course 1 course value student responses

Theme Sample responses

Traditional Course 1

Relevance to job Helps me to do my job better. Good direction to be able to guide 

our sections. Gave us the foundation necessary to do our jobs. 

Received many resources/tools to take back to workforce.

Online Basic Skills Course

Relevance to job Made me ask the right questions to learn about my (organization). 

Gave you the tools, tips, and tricks of the trade. Better perspective 

of our job.

The theme of relevance to job supported the study theoretical framework 

and prior studies comparing traditional and online courses. Mott, as cited by 

Wlodkowski, and Knowles, Holton, and Swanson theorized adults are more 

prone to choose learning opportunities that are relevant to their jobs.70 Nichols reported education student comments from both traditional and online 

course students valuing the relevance of course information to teaching.71

Similarly, law enforcement students who took traditional and online continu-
16

ing education courses valued traditional hands-on training over online education, particularly for new recruits.72

Course 2

In 2013, the traditional Course 2 was divided into an online course and a 

traditional course. The first online portion, the Basic Skills Course, covered 

the fundamentals of leading a midlevel military organization. The second traditional portion, the Specialized Skills 2 Course (pseudonym), covered specific topics from the second week of the original course. Twelve students completed the pretransition Course 2 EOCE after completing the traditional 

course. One of the respondents erroneously took the evaluation after completing a different, unrelated course. Because the results were aggregated and 

the students took the evaluation anonymously, it was not possible to delete 

this respondent’s results.

Twenty-three students completed the 2013 Basic Skills Course EOCE after 

completing the online prerequisite course. The results were from a mix of 

students from the two different career fields under examination. Because the 

results were aggregated and the students took the survey anonymously online, it was not possible to determine a breakout of responses by career field. 

Consequently, student narrative comments for the online Basic Skills Course 

were reported in both sections for completeness. Sixteen students completed 

the 2013 Specialized Skills 2 EOCE after completing the traditional track 

course. All students were from the second career field under examination.

Mission accomplishment. All of the student satisfaction ratings were 

within the Military School’s standard of slightly agree or higher to the statement “Based on the mission statement above, I believe the course accomplished its mission.” There were no significant differences among the three 

course means for student satisfaction with mission accomplishment. Means 

for the three course are shown in table 9. The differences were not significant, 

H (2, N = 51) = .892, p = .640. Therefore, the null hypothesis could not be 

rejected.
17

Table 9. Course 2 mission accomplishment descriptive statistics

Course Delivery mode n M SD

Course 2 Traditional 12 5.417 0.515

Basic Skills Course Online 23 5.348 0.714

Specialized Skills 2 Course Traditional 16 5.563 0.629

When responding to the question “Why do you feel the course did or did 

not accomplish its mission?” students often cited relevance to their jobs as 

being important in all three courses. Student comments are summarized in 

table 10.

Table 10. Course 2 mission accomplishment student responses

Theme Sample responses

Traditional Course 2

Relevance to job It provides an overview of (job) responsibilities. Provided information needed to complete our jobs. Time 

might have been better served discussing leadership.

Online Basic Skills Course

Relevance to job Great tools offered for new (leaders). Provided the tools 

and methodology to accomplish a (leader’s) duties and 

responsibilities. It made me think differently about my 

job.

Traditional Specialized Skills 2 Course 

Relevance to job Getting the leadership view of current challenges, gave 

me a great overview and reinforcement of my duties. 

Great course for someone like me that has experience 

in the field, but not at the (new job).

The theoretical framework was supported by this study’s theme of relevance to job. Mott, as cited by Wlodkowski, and Knowles, Holton, and Swanson theorized adults are more prone to choose learning opportunities that are 

relevant to their jobs.73

Course instruction. All of the student satisfaction ratings met the Military 

School’s standard of slightly agree or higher to the statement “Instruction during this course was delivered effectively.” There were no significant differences 

among the three course means for student satisfaction of instructor effectiveness. The means for all three course are shown in table 11. The p value was set 

at .05. The differences were not significant, H (2, N = 51) = .412, p = .814. The 

null hypothesis could not be rejected. These findings do not support Adams’ 

research comparing traditional and hybrid versions of a physical therapy 
18

course, which found significant differences when comparing student satisfaction of hybrid and traditional instructors.74

Table 11. Course 2 course instruction descriptive statistics

Course Delivery mode n M SD

Course 2 Traditional 12 5.417 0.515

Basic Skills Course Online 23 5.478 0.593

Specialized Skills 2 Course Traditional 16 5.563 0.512

In student responses to the question “Why do you feel the instruction for 

this course was or was not delivered effectively?,” as shown in table 12, the 

themes of instructor quality were present in comments of all three courses.

Table 12. Course 2 course instruction student responses

Theme Sample responses

Traditional Course 2

Instructor quality Instructors demonstrated professionalism and appeared 

well versed in areas. Excellent instructors. Instructor 

was not a subject matter expert. (Instructor) was not 

knowledgeable in some areas. Good mix of presenters.

Online Basic Skills Course

Instructor quality (Instructor) was great! Enjoyed instructor. I liked the 

use of different instructors. Relevance to job. Important 

part of managing. These were the areas that new (leaders) would most benefit from. Applied directly to many 

of the issues I face.

Traditional Specialized Skills 2 Course

Instructor quality Presenters were well varied for subject matter. Great 

mix between PowerPoints, lectures, taskers. Various 

mediums used in delivery helped reiterate the points.

Study findings supported the theoretical framework and prior studies. 

Salmon’s online learning theory was supported by multiple student comments 

tying instructor quality to the capacity of the course to accomplish its mission.75 Central to Salmon’s theory was the concept of high quality instructors 

who encouraged interaction in the online classroom. In a study conducted by 

Nichols in 2011, education students identified the importance of instructor 

quality.76

Course management. All student satisfaction ratings except one met the 

Military School’s standard of slightly agree or higher to the statement “The 
19

course was managed very effectively by the course director.” No significant 

differences among the three course means for student satisfaction of course 

management were found. The means for all three courses are shown in table 

13. The p value was set at .05. The differences were not significant, H (2, N = 

51) = .085, p = .958. Therefore, the null hypothesis could not be rejected.

Table 13. Course 2 course management descriptive statistics

Course Delivery mode n M SD

Course 2 Traditional 12 5.667 0.492

Basic Skills Course Online 23 5.652 0.573

Specialized Skills 2 Course Traditional 16 5.625 0.500

In student responses shown in table 14 to the question “Why do you believe the course was or was not managed effectively by the course director?,” 

the theme of student support during the online Basic Skills Course was present in the comments. 

Table 14. Course 2 course management student responses

Theme Sample responses

Online Basic Skills Course

Student support

Always available to help and answer questions. Everyone was 

so understanding and did all they could to help us. When 

there was a technical issue (course director) found a way 

around it.

Study findings were consistent with prior qualitative research studies investigating student satisfaction with traditional, hybrid, and online courses. 

Napier, Dekhane, and Smith research identified student support as critical to 

the successful transition of a traditional computer course to hybrid instruction.77 Lam and Bordia similarly reported student support as essential for online courses.78

Course value. All except one of the student satisfaction ratings shown in 

table 15 met the Military School’s standard of slightly agree or higher to the 

statement “The education received was highly valuable to my professional career development.” Student satisfaction means relating to students’ perceptions of the value of the course for all three courses are shown in table 15. 

There were no significant differences among the three course means. The p 

value was set at .05. The differences were not significant, H (2, N = 51) = 2.752, 

p = .253. The null hypothesis could not be rejected.
20

Table 15. Course 2 course value descriptive statistics

Course Delivery mode n M SD

Course 2 Traditional 12 5.667 0.492

Basic Skills Course Online 23 5.304 0.712

Specialized Skills 2 Course Traditional 16 5.688 0.519

This finding was consistent with York’s 2008 findings of no significant differences when comparing hybrid and traditional formats of a social work 

course.79 In contrast, significant differences were found in three prior research 

studies that compared course student satisfaction of hybrid and traditional 

course formats. Linda Wiechowski and Terri L. Washburn found students’ 

satisfaction ratings for hybrid courses were significantly higher than traditional versions of finance and economic courses.80 Cheryl Adams also reported significantly higher course student satisfaction ratings for a hybrid 

physical therapy course than the traditional version.81 In a wellness course, 

Lim, Kim, Chen, and Ryder found student satisfaction was significantly 

higher for a format that combined online and traditional instruction when 

compared to the traditional version of the course.82

In student responses to the survey open-ended question “Why do you feel 

the education you received was or was not highly valuable to your professional career development?,” the theme of relevance to job was found in all 

three courses as shown in table 16. These findings supported Mott, as cited by 

Wlodkowski, and Knowles, Holton, and Swanson, who theorized adults are 

more prone to choose learning opportunities that are relevant to their jobs.83

Table 16. Course 2 course value student responses

Theme Sample responses

Traditional Course 2

Relevance to job Materials reinforced practice applications utilized 

on a daily basis. Learned many aspects of the business I am now in. Shared (job) experiences and 

solutions are invaluable.

Online Basic Skills Course

Relevance to job Gave you the tools, tips, and tricks of the trade. 

Better perspective of our job. It helped me in building my confidence as a leader.

Traditional Specialized Skills 2 Course

Relevance to job Everything learned is applicable in the field. What I 

have learned I feel I can bring back to my programs 

and use. I honestly believe this course will guide 

me in running my (organization) better.
21

Discussion/Conclusions

There were no significant differences in student satisfaction among the traditional, online, and hybrid versions of Course 1 and Course 2 in the areas of 

mission accomplishment, course management, course instruction, and course 

value. Thematic analysis of student narrative comments revealed possible factors that might have contributed to maintaining student satisfaction during 

the transitions. Table 17 summarizes the themes and course occurrences.

Table 17. Themes by course and evaluation area

Course Format Job 

relevance

Instructor

quality

Interaction Student 

support

Course 1 Traditional MA, CI, CV CI CM

Basic Skills Course Online MA, CI, CV CI MA, CI CM

Specialized 

Skills 1 Course

Online MA, CI, 

CM

Course 2 Traditional MA, CV CI

Specialized 

Skills 2 Course

Traditional MA, CV CI

Note: MA = Mission Accomplishment, CI = Course Instruction, CM = Course Management, CV = Course Value

Course relevance to job duties, roles, and responsibilities was the most recurrent theme across multiple courses, particularly in the mission accomplishment and course value evaluation areas. Sample trending comments from 

traditional and online students included “everything learned is applicable in 

the field,” “this helps me do a better job,” and “received many resources/tools 

to take back to workforce.” These findings suggest maintaining a high degree 

of relevance to student job responsibilities might be a factor contributing to 

comparable student satisfaction across different course delivery formats.

Instructor quality and interaction were recurrent themes in both course 

instruction and mission accomplishment areas. In particular, high instructor 

quality was associated with the degree to which they engaged with their students and encouraged interaction among the students. Students commented 

“instructors made the difference,” “instructors were engaging,” “allowed for 

interaction, not only with the instructors/facilitators, but also with students,” 

and “(instructors got) students to use critical thinking and analysis.” These 

findings suggest high quality instructors that encouraged interaction are key 

factors to maintain student satisfaction when transitioning courses from traditional to online and hybrid delivery formats.
22

Student support was also identified multiple times and influenced student 

course perceptions. Students commented positively about student support for 

both traditional and online learning modes “anytime we had an issue, they 

were all over it trying to get it resolved” and “always available to help and answer questions.” These findings suggest a robust student support function is 

essential for maintaining student satisfaction when transitioning courses 

from traditional to online instruction.

The scope of this research study was limited to two courses. There were 

four other Military School courses that transitioned from traditional to hybrid or online instructional formats in the same timeframe; however, the two 

courses under examination provided the largest sample. This delimitation 

was intended to minimize the impact of potential extraneous variables by 

keeping the courses within the same department of the Military School. The 

students attending both courses were from two military career fields. Extending the study to the other four courses would introduce different course content, vary the student career fields, and involve different sets of instructors.

This research study focused on analyses of two courses in one Military 

School department. Future research is needed across other Military School 

departments and courses to build research-based best practices on using various course delivery modes. Specifically, quantitative studies can continue to 

be conducted that focus on student satisfaction data for all Military School 

courses transitioning to hybrid and online delivery. Qualitative evaluations of 

instructor, supporting staff, and school leadership experiences for transitioning courses would provide insight into alternate perceptions of the course 

transitions.

Without access to continuing education courses at the Military School, 

military and civilians serving abroad might find it more difficult to keep pace 

with professional development, thereby impacting readiness and ultimately 

national security. Budget cuts and personnel shortages are simultaneously 

limiting the ability for military members and civilians to travel to the Military 

School to take traditional continuing education courses. Consequently, the 

Military School is turning to hybrid and online delivery to offer courses to 

military members and civilians. The study findings suggest student traditional 

leadership continuing education courses may successfully be transitioned to 

online and hybrid delivery modes when there is particular attention to incorporating job-related activities and robust interactive learning activities. Successful transitions to online and hybrid learning opportunities may allow 

military members and civilians to continue their professional development 

despite budget cuts and resource shortfalls.
23

Appendix: Military School End of Course Evaluation

1. I believe the course accomplished its mission.

{Choose one}

( ) Strongly Agree

( ) Agree

( ) Slightly Agree

( ) Slightly Disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Strongly Disagree

2. Instruction during this course was delivered effectively.

{Choose one}

( ) Strongly Agree

( ) Agree

( ) Slightly Agree

( ) Slightly Disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Strongly Disagree

3. The course was managed very effectively by the course director.

{Choose one}

( ) Strongly Agree

( ) Agree

( ) Slightly Agree

( ) Slightly Disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Strongly Disagree
24

4. The education received was highly valuable to my professional career development.

{Choose one}

( ) Strongly Agree

( ) Agree

( ) Slightly Agree

( ) Slightly Disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Strongly Disagree

5. The education has given me a foundation to effectively perform in an operational or support environment.

{Choose one}

( ) Strongly Agree

( ) Agree

( ) Slightly Agree

( ) Slightly Disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Strongly Disagree

6. I will use this education to enhance my performance in leadership, advisory, and /or support roles.

{Choose one}

( ) Strongly Agree

( ) Agree

( ) Slightly Agree

( ) Slightly Disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Strongly Disagree
25

7. The course was intellectually stimulating.

{Choose one}

( ) Strongly Agree

( ) Agree

( ) Slightly Agree

( ) Slightly Disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Strongly Disagree

8. The course was supported by appropriate educational technology.

{Choose one}

( ) Strongly Agree

( ) Agree

( ) Slightly Agree

( ) Slightly Disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Strongly Disagree

9. The course contained current content.

{Choose one}

( ) Strongly Agree

( ) Agree

( ) Slightly Agree

( ) Slightly Disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Strongly Disagree
26

10. What were the best area(s) of instruction?

{Enter answer in paragraph form}

11. What area(s) of instruction do you consider to be the least effective?

{Enter answer in paragraph form}

12. What were the course strengths? Why?

{Enter answer in paragraph form}

13. What are some possible recommended improvements for the course?

{Enter answer in paragraph form}

14. Why do you feel the course was or was not facilitated well by the course 

facilitator?

{Enter answer in paragraph form}

Additional Comments:

{Enter answer in paragraph form}
27

Notes

1. SSgt Clinton Atkins, “An AETC Vision for Learning Transformation” (white paper, 

Air Education and Training Command, 28 February 2013), http://www.airforcemag.com/

DRArchive/Pages/2013/March 2013/March 25 2013/AETCOutlinesTransformationinTraining.aspx; Naval Education and Training Command, Strategic Plan 2013–2023, 2013, https://

www.netc.navy.mil/_documents/NETC%20Strategic%20Plan%202013_2023.pdf; and United 

States Army Training and Doctrine Command, “Army Learning Concept for 2015,” TRADOC 

pamphlet 525-8-2 (Fort Eustis, Virginia, 6 June 2011), http://sill-www.army.mil/DOTD/divisions/pdd/docs/Army%20Learning%20Model%202015.pdf.

2. Malcolm S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson, The Adult 

Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 7th ed.

(Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2011).

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Raymond J. Wlodkowski, Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive 

Guide for Teaching All Adults (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008).

7. Terry Anderson, ed., The Theory and Practice of Online Learning, 2nd ed. (Edmonton, 

AB: Athabasca University Press, 2008), http://aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146; and Malcolm S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson, The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 7th ed. (Burlington, 

MA: Elsevier, 2011). 

8. Rena M. Palloff and Keith Pratt, “Making the Transition: Helping Teachers to Teach 

Online” (working paper, Educause 2000, Nashville, TN, 10–13 March 2000): 7, http://files.

eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED452806.pdf.

9. Gilly Salmon, E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, 3rd ed. (New 

York: Routledge, 2011). 

10. Malcolm S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson, The Adult 

Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 7th ed.

(Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2011).

11. Terry Anderson, ed., The Theory and Practice of Online Learning, 2nd ed. (Edmonton, 

AB: Athabasca University Press, 2008), http://aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146.

12. Gilly Salmon, E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, 3rd ed. (New 

York: Routledge, 2011).

13. Anthony R. Artino, “Online or Face-to-Face Learning? Exploring the Personal Factors 

that Predict Students’ Choice of Instructional Format,” The Internet and Higher Education 13, 

no. 4 (December 2010): 272–76, https://doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.005.

14. Anthony R. Artino, “Motivational Beliefs and Perceptions of Instructional Quality: 

Predicting Satisfaction with Online Training,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24, no. 3 

(June 2008): 260–70, https://doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00258.x.

15. Anthony R. Artino, “Online Learning: Are Subjective Perceptions of Instructional 

Context Related to Academic Success?,” The Internet and Higher Education 12, no. 3–4 (December 2009): 117–25, https://doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.07.003.

16. Amy J. Bayliss and Stuart J. Warden, “A Hybrid Model of Student-Centered Instruction Improves Physical Therapy Student Performance in Cardiopulmonary Practice Patterns 

by Enhancing Performance in Higher Cognitive Domains,” Journal of Physical Therapy Educa-
28

tion 25, (October 2011): 14–20, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232850116; Cassandra DiRienzo and Gregory Lilly, “Online Versus Face-to-Face: Does Delivery Method Matter for Undergraduate Business School Learning?,” Business Education and Accreditation 6, no. 

1 (2014): 1–11, http://www.theibfr.com/beasample.htm; and Reginald O. York, “Comparing 

Three Modes of Instruction in a Graduate Social Work Program,” Journal of Social Work Education 44, no. 2 (2008): 157–72, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5175/JSWE.2008. 

200700031.

17. Pamela Lam and Sarbari Bordia, “Factors Affecting Student Choice of E-Learning 

over Traditional Learning: Student and Teacher Perspectives,” International Journal of Learning: Annual Review 14, no. 12 (2008): 133–39, https://doi:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/

v14i12/45546.

18. Ibid.

19. Anthony R. Artino, “Motivational Beliefs and Perceptions of Instructional Quality: 

Predicting Satisfaction with Online Training,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24, no. 3 

(June 2008): 260–70, https://doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00258.x.

20. Kyong-Jee Kim, Curtis J. Bonk, and Eunjung Oh, “The Present and Future State of 

Blended Learning in Workplace Learning Settings in the United States,” Performance Improvement 47, no. 8 (September 2008): 5–16, https://doi:10.1002/pfi.20018; Brian W. Donavant, “The New, Modern Practice of Adult Education: Online Instruction in a Continuing 

Professional Education Setting,” Adult Education Quarterly 59, no. 3 (May 2009): 227–45, 

https://doi:10.1177/0741713609331546; Brian W. Donavant, “To Internet or not? Assessing 

the Efficacy of Online Police Training,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 34, no. 3–4 (December 2009): 224–37, https://doi:10.1007/s12103-009-9061-7; and Lisa Kirtman, “Online 

Versus In-Class Courses: An Examination of Differences in Learning Outcomes,” Issues in 

Teacher Education 18, no. 2 (2009): 103–16, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ858508.pdf.

21. Windsor Westgate Sherrill and Khoa Truong, “Traditional Teaching vs. Hybrid Instruction: Course Evaluation and Student Performance in Health Services Management Education,” Journal of Health Administration Education 27, no. 4 (January 2010): 253–68, https://

www.researchgate.net/publication/263124237.

22. J. B. Arbaugh, Michael R. Godfrey, Marianne Johnson, Birgit Leisen Pollock, Bruce 

Niendorf, and William Wresch, “Research in Online and Blended Learning in the Business 

Disciplines: Key Findings and Possible Future Directions,” Internet and Higher Education 12 

(June 2009): 71–87, https://doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.006; and Peggy E. Steinbronn and 

Eunice M. Merideth, “Perceived Utility of Methods and Instructional Strategies Used in Online and Face-to-Face Teaching Environments,” Innovative Higher Education 32, no. 5 (March 

2008): 265–78, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9058-4.

23. Cheryl Adams, “A Comparison of Student Outcomes in a Therapeutic Modalities 

Course Based on Mode of Delivery: Hybrid Versus Traditional Classroom Instruction,” Journal of Physical Therapy Education 27, no. 1 (Winter 2013): 20–34, https://www.questia.com/

library/journal/1P32876324451/comparison-of-knowledge-and-knowledge-application; Jon 

Lim, May Kim, Steve S. Chen, and Cynthia E. Ryder, “An Empirical Investigation of Student 

Achievement and Satisfaction in Different Learning Environments,” Journal of Instructional 

Psychology 32, no. 2 (2008): 113–19, https://www.questia.com/library/

journal/1G1-181365758/an-empirical-investigation-of-student-achievement; and Nanette P. 

Napier, Sonal Dekhane, and Stella Smith, “Transitioning to Blended Learning: Understanding Student and Instructor Perceptions,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 15, no. 1 

(February 2011): 20–32, https://doi:10.24059/olj.v15i1.188.
29

24. Laura Alonso Diaz and Florentino Blazquez Entonado, “Are the Functions of Teachers 

in E-Learning and Face-to-Face Learning Environments Really Different?,” Educational Technology and Society 12, no. 4 (2009): 331–43, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ860455; Brian W. Donavant, “The New, Modern Practice of Adult Education: Online Instruction in a Continuing 

Professional Education Setting,” Adult Education Quarterly 59, no. 3 (May 2009): 227–45, 

https://doi:10.1177/0741713609331546; Brian W. Donavant, “To Internet or Not? Assessing 

the Efficacy of Online Police Training,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 34, no. 3–4 (December 2009): 224–37, https://doi:10.1007/s12103-009-9061-7; Nanette P. Napier, Sonal 

Dekhane, and Stella Smith, “Transitioning to Blended Learning: Understanding Student and 

Instructor Perceptions,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 15, no. 1 (February 

2011): 20–32, https://doi:10.24059/olj.v15i1.188; and Windsor Westgate Sherrill and Khoa 

Truong, “Traditional Teaching vs. Hybrid Instruction: Course Evaluation and Student Performance in Health Services Management Education,” Journal of Health Administration Education 27, no. 4 (January 2010): 253–68, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263124237.

25. David Starr-Glass, “Experiences with Military Online Learners: Toward a Mindful 

Practice,” Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9, no. 3 (September 2013): 353–63, 

http:// jolt.merlot.org/vol9no3/starr-glass_0913.pdf.

26. J. B. Arbaugh, Michael R. Godfrey, Marianne Johnson, Birgit Leisen Pollock, Bruce 

Niendorf, and William Wresch, “Research in Online and Blended Learning in the Business 

Disciplines: Key Findings and Possible Future Directions,” Internet and Higher Education 12 

(June 2009): 71–87, https://doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.006. 

27. Brian W. Donavant, “The New, Modern Practice of Adult Education: Online Instruction in a Continuing Professional Education Setting,” Adult Education Quarterly 59, no. 3 

(May 2009): 227–45, https://doi:10.1177/0741713609331546; and Brian W. Donavant, “To 

Internet or Not? Assessing the Efficacy of Online Police Training,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 34, no. 3–4 (December 2009): 224–37, https://doi:10.1007/s12103-009-9061-7.

28. Lisa Kirtman, “Online Versus In-class Courses: An Examination of Differences in 

Learning Outcomes,” Issues in Teacher Education 18, no. 2 (2009): 103–16, http://files.eric.ed.

gov/fulltext/EJ858508.pdf.

29. Ibid., 110. 

30. Cara Rabe-Hemp, Susan Woollen, and Gail Humiston, “A Comparative Analysis of 

Student Engagement, Learning, and Satisfaction in Lecture Hall and Online Learning Settings,” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10, no. 2 (2009): 207–18, https://eric.ed.

gov/?id=EJ864053.

31. Pamela Lam and Sarbari Bordia, “Factors Affecting Student Choice of E-learning over 

Traditional Learning: Student and Teacher Perspectives,” International Journal of Learning: 

Annual Review 14, no. 12 (2008): 136, https://doi:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v14i12/45546.

32. Sidney R. Castle and Chad J. McGuire, “An Analysis of Student Self-Assessment of 

Online, Blended, and Face-to-Face Learning Environments: Implications for Sustainable Education Delivery,” International Education Studies 3, no. 3 (August 2010): 36–40, https://

doi:10.5539/ies.v3n3p36. 

33. Jon Lim, May Kim, Steve S. Chen, and Cynthia E. Ryder, “An Empirical Investigation 

of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in Different Learning Environments,” Journal of 

Instructional Psychology 32, no. 2 (2008): 113–19, https://www.questia.com/library/

journal/1G1-181365758/an-empirical-investigation-of-student-achievement. 
30

34. Nanette P. Napier, Sonal Dekhane, and Stella Smith, “Transitioning to Blended Learning: Understanding Student and Instructor Perceptions,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning 

Networks 15, no. 1 (February 2011): 20–32, https://doi:10.24059/olj.v15i1.188.

35. Agi Horspool and Carsten Lange, “Applying the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Student Perceptions, Behaviours and Success Online and Face-to-Face,” Assessment and 

Evaluation in Higher Education 37, no. 1 (2012): 73–88, https://doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.49

6532. 

36. Siu-Man Raymond Ting and Laura M. Gonzalez, “Quality of Interactions in Face-toFace and Hybrid Career Development Courses: An Exploration of Students’ Perceptions,” 

Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9, no. 3 (September 2013), pages 316-327, 

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no3/ting_0913.htm.

37. Suzanne Young and Heather E. Duncan, “Online and Face-to-Face Teaching: How Do 

Student Ratings Differ?,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 10, no. 1 (March 

2014): 70–79, jolt.merlot.org/vol10no1/ young_0314.pdf. 

38. Joe Nichols, “Comparing Educational Leadership Course and Professor Evaluations in 

On-line and Traditional Instructional Formats: What are the Students Saying?,” College Student Journal 45, no. 4 (December 2011): 862–68, https://www.questia.com/library/

journal/1G1-278276708/comparing-educational-leadership-course-and-professor. 

39. Brian W. Donavant, “The New, Modern Practice of Adult Education: Online Instruction in a Continuing Professional Education Setting,” Adult Education Quarterly 59, no. 3 

(May 2009): 227–45, https://doi:10.1177/0741713609331546; Brian W. Donavant, “To Internet or Not? Assessing the Efficacy of Online Police Training,” American Journal of Criminal 

Justice 34, no. 3–4 (December 2009): 224–37, https://doi:10.1007/s12103-009-9061-7; and 

LaDonna S. Hale, Emily A. Mirakian, and David B. Day, “Online vs. Classroom Instruction: 

Student Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in an Undergraduate Allied Health Pharmacology Course,” Journal of Allied Health 38, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 36E–42E. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asahp/jah/2009/00000038/00000002/art00010#expand/collapse. 

40. Anthony R. Artino, “Online Learning: Are Subjective Perceptions of Instructional 

Context Related to Academic Success?,” The Internet and Higher Education 12, no. 3–4 (December 2009): 117–25, https://doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.07.003.

41. Marguerite G. Lodico, Dean T. Spaulding, and Katherine H. Voegtle, Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice, 2nd ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons 2010), 

139–43.

42. Bradley Barker and David Brooks, “An Evaluation of Short-Term Distributed Online 

Learning Events,” International Journal on E-Learning 4, no. 2 (2005): 209–28, https://eric.

ed.gov/?id=EJ736706; and Steven W. Schmidt and Vivian W. Mott, “Development of a Graduate Education Program for U.S. Army Interns and Careerists,” New Directions for Adult and 

Continuing Education 136 (Winter 2012): 41–51, https://doi:10.1002/ace.20034.

43. Dr. Carl I. Schulman, George D. Garcia, Mary M. Wyckoff, Robert C. Duncan, Kelly F. 

Withum, and Jill Graygo, “Mobile Learning Module Improves Knowledge of Medical Shock 

for Forward Surgical Team Members,” Military Medicine 177, no. 11 (November 2012): 1316–

21, http://militarymedicine.amsus.org/doi/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00155; and Jon Hammermeister, Michael A. Pickering, and Carl J. Ohlson, “Teaching Mental Skills for Self-Esteem Enhancement in a Military Healthcare Setting,” Journal of Instructional Psychology 36, 

no. 3 (September 2009): 203–9, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ952269.

44. Lisa T. Fall, Stephanie Kelly, and Scott Christen, “Revisiting the Impact of Instructional Immediacy: A Differentiation Between Military and Civilians,” Quarterly Review of 
31

Distance Education 12, no. 3 (2011): 199–206, http://www.infoagepub.com/qrde-issue.

html?i=p54c3c57a10889. 

45. David Starr-Glass, “Experiences with Military Online Learners: Toward a Mindful 

Practice,” Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9, no. 3 (September 2013): 353–63, 

http:// jolt.merlot.org/vol9no3/starr-glass_0913.pdf. 

46. Mario F. Triola, Elementary Statistics (Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2012), 686–89. 

47. Marguerite G. Lodico, Dean T. Spaulding, and Katherine H. Voegtle, Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice, 2 ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2010), 

139–43.

48. Sharan B. Merriam, Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (San 

Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2009), 165–207.

49. Marguerite G. Lodico, Dean T. Spaulding, and Katherine H. Voegtle, Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice, 2nd ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 

2010), 139–43.

50. Laura Palmer, John M. O’Donnell, Dianxu Ren, and Richard Henker, “Comparison of 

Nurse Anesthesia Student 12 Lead EKG Knowledge, Integration, Skill, Satisfaction, and Attitude: Traditional Instruction vs. Asynchronous Online Video Lecture,” MERLOT Journal of 

Online Learning and Teaching 10, no. 2 (September 2014): 420–35, jolt.merlot.org/vol10no3/

Palmer_0914.pdf. 

51. Raymond J. Wlodkowski, Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive 

Guide for Teaching All Adults (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008); and Malcolm S. Knowles, 

Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson, The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in 

Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 7th ed. (Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2011).

52. Terry Anderson, ed., The Theory and Practice of Online Learning, 2nd ed. (Edmonton, 

AB: Athabasca University Press, 2008), http://aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146.

53. Adam Driscoll, Karl Jicha, Andrea N. Hunt, Lisa Tichavsky, and Gretchen Thompson, 

“Can Online Courses Deliver In-Class Results? A Comparison of Student Performance and 

Satisfaction in an Online Versus Face-to-Face Introductory Sociology Course,” Teaching Sociology 40, no. 4 (October 2012): 312–31. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0092055X12446624.

54. Laura Palmer, John M. O’Donnell, Dianxu Ren, and Richard Henker, “Comparison of 

Nurse Anesthesia Student 12 Lead EKG Knowledge, Integration, Skill, Satisfaction, and Attitude: Traditional Instruction vs. Asynchronous Online Video Lecture,” MERLOT Journal of 

Online Learning and Teaching 10, no. 2 (September 2014): 420–35, jolt.merlot.org/vol10no3/

Palmer_0914.pdf. 

55. LaDonna S. Hale, Emily A. Mirakian, and David B. Day, “Online vs. Classroom Instruction: Student Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in an Undergraduate Allied Health 

Pharmacology Course,” Journal of Allied Health 38, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 36E–42E, http://

www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asahp/jah/2009/00000038/00000002/art00010#expand/

collapse. 

56. Gilly Salmon, E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, 3rd ed. (New 

York: Routledge, 2011).

57. Joe Nichols, “Comparing Educational Leadership Course and Professor Evaluations in 

On-line and Traditional Instructional Formats: What are the Students Saying?,” College Student Journal 45, no. 4 (December 2011): 862–68, https://www.questia.com/library/

journal/1G1-278276708/comparing-educational-leadership-course-and-professor.
32

58. Laura Alonso Diaz and Florentino Blazquez Entonado, “Are the Functions of Teachers 

in E-Learning and Face-to-Face Learning Environments Really Different?,” Educational Technology and Society 12, no. 4 (2009): 331–43, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ860455. 

59. Brian W. Donavant, “The New, Modern Practice of Adult Education: Online Instruction in a Continuing Professional Education Setting,” Adult Education Quarterly 59, no. 3 

(May 2009): 227–45, https://doi:10.1177/0741713609331546; and Brian W. Donavant, “To 

Internet or Not? Assessing the Efficacy of Online Police Training,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 34, no. 3–4 (December 2009): 224–37, https://doi:10.1007/s12103-009-9061-7. 

60. Lisa Kirtman, “Online Versus In-Class Courses: An Examination of Differences in 

Learning Outcomes,” Issues in Teacher Education 18, no. 2 (2009): 103–16, http://files.eric.ed.

gov/fulltext/EJ858508.pdf.

61. Pamela Lam and Sarbari Bordia, “Factors Affecting Student Choice of E-Learning 

Over Traditional Learning: Student and Teacher Perspectives,” International Journal of Learning: Annual Review 14, no. 12 (2008): 133–39, https://doi:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/

v14i12/45546. 

62. Adam Driscoll, Karl Jicha, Andrea N. Hunt, Lisa Tichavsky, and Gretchen Thompson, 

“Can Online Courses Deliver In-Class Results? A Comparison of Student Performance and 

Satisfaction in an Online Versus Face-to-Face Introductory Sociology Course,” Teaching Sociology 40, no. 4 (October 2012): 312–31, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0092055X12446624.

63. Laura Palmer, John M. O’Donnell, Dianxu Ren, and Richard Henker, “Comparison of 

Nurse Anesthesia Student 12 Lead EKG Knowledge, Integration, Skill, Satisfaction, and Attitude: Traditional Instruction vs. Asynchronous Online Video Lecture,” MERLOT Journal of 

Online Learning and Teaching 10, no. 2 (September 2014): 420–35, jolt.merlot.org/vol10no3/

Palmer_0914.pdf. 

64. Dae Shik Kim, Helen Lee, and Annette Skellenger, “Comparison of Levels of Satisfaction with Distance Education and On-campus Programs,” Journal of Visual Impairment & 

Blindness 106, no. 5 (May 2012): 275–86, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ985033.

65. Nanette P. Napier, Sonal Dekhane, and Stella Smith, “Transitioning to Blended Learning: Understanding Student and Instructor Perceptions,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning 

Networks 15, no. 1 (February 2011): 20–32, https://doi:10.24059/olj.v15i1.188.

66. Pamela Lam and Sarbari Bordia, “Factors Affecting Student Choice of E-Learning 

over Traditional Learning: Student and Teacher Perspectives,” International Journal of Learning: Annual Review 14, no. 12 (2008): 133–39, https://doi:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/

v14i12/45546. 

67. Joe Nichols, “Comparing Educational Leadership Course and Professor Evaluations in 

On-line and Traditional Instructional Formats: What are the Students Saying?,” College Student Journal 45, no. 4 (December 2011): 862–68, https://www.questia.com/library/

journal/1G1-278276708/comparing-educational-leadership-course-and-professor. 

68. Malcolm S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson, The Adult 

Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 7th ed.

(Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2011). 

69. Amy J. Bayliss and Stuart J. Warden, “A Hybrid Model of Student-Centered Instruction Improves Physical Therapy Student Performance in Cardiopulmonary Practice Patterns 

by Enhancing Performance in Higher Cognitive Domains,” Journal of Physical Therapy Education 25, (October 2011): 14–20, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232850116; Cassandra DiRienzo and Gregory Lilly, “Online Versus Face-to-Face: Does Delivery Method 

Matter for Undergraduate Business School Learning?,” Business Education and Accreditation
33

6, no. 1 (2014): 1–11, http://www.theibfr.com/beasample.htm; and Reginald O. York, “Comparing Three Modes of Instruction in a Graduate Social Work Program,” Journal of Social 

Work Education 44, no. 2 (2008): 157–72, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5175/

JSWE.2008.200700031. 

70. Raymond J. Wlodkowski, Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive 

Guide for Teaching All Adults (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008); and Malcolm S. Knowles, 

Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson, The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in 

Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 7th ed. (Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2011).

71. Joe Nichols, “Comparing Educational Leadership Course and Professor Evaluations in 

On-line and Traditional Instructional Formats: What are the Students Saying?,” College Student Journal 45, no. 4 (December 2011): 862–68, https://www.questia.com/library/

journal/1G1-278276708/comparing-educational-leadership-course-and-professor. 

72. Brian W. Donavant, “The New, Modern Practice of Adult Education: Online Instruction in a Continuing Professional Education Setting,” Adult Education Quarterly 59, no. 3 

(May 2009): 227–45, https://doi:10.1177/0741713609331546; and Brian W. Donavant, “To 

Internet or Not? Assessing the Efficacy of Online Police Training,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 34, no. 3–4 (December 2009): 224–37, https://doi:10.1007/s12103-009-9061-7. 

73. Raymond J. Wlodkowski, Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive 

Guide for Teaching All Adults (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008); and Malcolm S. Knowles, 

Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson, The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in 

Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 7th ed. (Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2011).

74. Cheryl Adams, “A Comparison of Student Outcomes in a Therapeutic Modalities 

Course Based on Mode of Delivery: Hybrid Versus Traditional Classroom Instruction,” Journal of Physical Therapy Education 27, no. 1 (Winter 2013): 20–34, https://www.questia.com/

library/journal/1P3-2876324451/comparison-of-knowledge-and-knowledge-application. 

75. Gilly Salmon, E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, 3rd ed. (New 

York: Routledge, 2011). 

76. Joe Nichols, “Comparing Educational Leadership Course and Professor Evaluations in 

On-line and Traditional Instructional Formats: What are the Students Saying?,” College Student Journal 45, no. 4 (December 2011): 862–68, https://www.questia.com/library/

journal/1G1-278276708/comparing-educational-leadership-course-and-professor. 

77. Nanette P. Napier, Sonal Dekhane, and Stella Smith, “Transitioning to Blended Learning: Understanding Student and Instructor Perceptions,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning 

Networks 15, no. 1 (February 2011): 20–32, https://doi:10.24059/olj.v15i1.188.

78. Pamela Lam and Sarbari Bordia, “Factors Affecting Student Choice of E-Learning 

over Traditional Learning: Student and Teacher Perspectives,” 14, no. 12 (2008): 133–139, 

https://doi:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v14i12/45546.

79. Reginald O. York, “Comparing Three Modes of Instruction in a Graduate Social Work 

Program,” Journal of Social Work Education 44, no. 2 (2008): 157–72, http://www.tandfonline.

com/doi/abs/10.5175/JSWE.2008. 200700031.

80. Linda Wiechowski and Terri L. Washburn, “Online Finance and Economics Courses: 

A Comparative Study of Course Satisfaction and Outcomes across Learning Models,” American Journal of Business Education 7, no. 1 (2014): 37–48, https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.

v7i1.8318. 

81. Cheryl Adams, “A Comparison of Student Outcomes in a Therapeutic Modalities 

Course Based on Mode of Delivery: Hybrid Versus Traditional Classroom Instruction,” Jour-
34

nal of Physical Therapy Education 27, no. 1 (Winter 2013): 20–34, https://www.questia.com/

library/journal/1P3-2876324451/comparison-of-knowledge-and-knowledge-application. 

82. Jon Lim, May Kim, Steve S. Chen, and Cynthia E Ryder, “An Empirical Investigation 

of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in Different Learning Environments,” Journal of 

Instructional Psychology, 32, no. 2 (2008): 113–19, https://www.questia.com/library/

journal/1G1-181365758/an-empirical-investigation-of-student-achievement. 

83. Raymond J. Wlodkowski, Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive 

Guide for Teaching All Adults (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008); and Malcolm S. Knowles, 

Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson, The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in 

Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 7th ed. (Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2011).
35

Bibliography

Adams, Cheryl. “A Comparison of Student Outcomes in a Therapeutic 

Modalities Course Based on Mode of Delivery: Hybrid Versus Traditional Classroom Instruction.” Journal of Physical Therapy Education 27, no. 1 (Winter 2013): 20–34. https://www.questia.com/library/

journal/1P3-2876324451/comparison-of-knowledge-and-knowledgeapplication.

Anderson, Terry, ed. The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. 2nd ed. 

Edmonton, AB: AU Press, 2008.

Arbaugh, J. B, Michael R. Godfrey, Marianne Johnson, Birgit Leisen Pollock, 

Bruce Niendorf, and William Wresch. “Research in Online and Blended 

Learning in the Business Disciplines: Key Findings and Possible Future 

Directions,” Internet and Higher Education 12 (June 2009): 71–87. https://

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.006.

Artino, Anthony R. “Motivational Beliefs and Perceptions of Instructional Quality: Predicting Satisfaction with Online Training.” Journal of 

Computer Assisted Learning 24, no. 3 (June 2008): 260–70. https://doi: 

10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00258.x.

———. “Online Learning: Are Subjective Perceptions of Instructional Context Related to Academic Success?” Internet and Higher Education 12, no. 

3–4 (December 2009): 117–25. https://doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.07.003.

———. “Online or Face-to-Face Learning? Exploring the Personal Factors 

that Predict Students’ Choice of Instructional Format.” Internet and Higher Education 13, no. 4 (December 2010): 272–76. https://doi: 10.1016/j.

iheduc.2010.07.005.

Atkins, Clinton. “An AETC Vision for Learning Transformation.” White 

paper. Air Education and Training Command, 28 February 2013. http://

www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2013/March 2013/March 25 

2013/AETCOutlinesTransformationinTraining.aspx. 

Barker, Bradley and David Brooks. “An Evaluation of Short-Term Distributed Online Learning Events.” International Journal on E-Learning 4, no. 

2 (2005): 209–28. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ736706.

Bayliss, Amy J. and Stuart J. Warden. “A Hybrid Model of Student-Centered 

Instruction Improves Physical Therapy Student Performance in Cardiopulmonary Practice Patterns by Enhancing Performance in Higher 

Cognitive Domains.” Journal of Physical Therapy Education 25 (October 

2011): 14–20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232850116.

Castle, Sidney R. and Chad J. McGuire. “An Analysis of Student Self-Assessment of Online, Blended, and Face-to-Face Learning Environments: 
36

Implications for Sustainable Education Delivery.” International Education 

Studies 3, no. 3 (August 2010): 36–40. https://doi:10.5539/ies.v3n3p36. 

Diaz, Laura Alonso and Florentino Blazquez Entonado. “Are the Functions 

of Teachers in E-Learning and Face-to-Face Learning Environments 

Really Different?” Educational Technology and Society 12, no. 4 (2009): 

331–43. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ860455. 

DiRienzo, Cassandra and Gregory Lilly. “Online Versus Face-to-Face: Does 

Delivery Method Matter for Undergraduate Business School Learning?” 

Business Education and Accreditation 6, no. 1 (2014): 1–11. http://www.

theibfr.com/beasample.htm. 

Donavant. Brian W. “The New, Modern Practice of Adult Education: 

Online Instruction in a Continuing Professional Education Setting.” 

Adult Education Quarterly 59, no. 3 (May 2009): 227–245. https://

doi:10.1177/0741713609331546.

———. “To Internet or Not? Assessing the Efficacy of Online Police Training.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 34, no. 3–4 (December 2009): 

224–37. https://doi:10.1007/s12103-009-9061-7. 

Driscoll, Adam, Karl Jicha, Andrea N. Hunt, Lisa Tichavsky, and Gretchen 

Thompson. “Can Online Courses Deliver In-Class Results? A Comparison of Student Performance and Satisfaction in an Online Versus Faceto-Face Introductory Sociology Course.” Teaching Sociology 40, no. 4 

(October 2012): 312–31. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0092055X12446624.

Fall, Lisa T., Stephanie Kelly, and Scott Christen. “Revisiting the Impact of 

Instructional Immediacy: A Differentiation Between Military and Civilians.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 12, no. 3 (2011): 199–206. 

http://www.infoagepub.com/qrde-issue.html?i=p54c3c57a10889. 

Hale, LaDonna S., Emily A. Mirakian, and David B. Day. “Online vs. Classroom Instruction: Student Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in an 

Undergraduate Allied Health Pharmacology Course.” Journal of Allied 

Health 38, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 36E–42E. http://www.ingentaconnect.

com/content/asahp/jah/2009/00000038/00000002/art00010#expand/collapse. 

Hammermeister, Jon, Michael A. Pickering, and Carl J. Ohlson. “Teaching Mental Skills for Self-Esteem Enhancement in a Military Healthcare 

Setting.” Journal of Instructional Psychology 36, no. 3 (September 2009): 

203–9. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ952269.

Horspool, Agi and Carsten Lange. “Applying the Scholarship of Teaching 

and Learning: Student Perceptions, Behaviours and Success Online and 

Face-to-Face.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 37, no. 1 

(2012): 73–88. https://doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.496532.
37

Kim, Dae Shik, Helen Lee, and Annette Skellenger. “Comparison of Levels of 

Satisfaction with Distance Education and On-campus Programs.” Journal 

of Visual Impairment & Blindness 106, no. 5 (May 2012): 275–86. https://

eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ985033.

Kim, Kyong-Jee, Curtis J. Bonk, and Eunjung Oh. “The Present and Future 

State of Blended Learning in Workplace Learning Settings in the United 

States.” Performance Improvement 47, no. 8 (September 2008): 5–16. 

https://doi:10.1002/pfi.20018.

Kirtman, Lisa. “Online Versus In-Class Courses: An Examination of Differences in Learning Outcomes.” Issues in Teacher Education 18, no. 2 

(2009): 103–16. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ858508.pdf.

Knowles, Malcolm S., Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson. The 

Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human 

Resource Development, 7th ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2011.

Lam, Pamela and Sarbari Bordia. “Factors Affecting Student Choice of 

E-Learning over Traditional Learning: Student and Teacher Perspectives.” International Journal of Learning: Annual Review 14, no. 12 (2008): 

133–39. https://doi:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v14i12/45546.

Lim, Jon, May Kim, Steve S. Chen, and Cynthia E Ryder. “An Empirical Investigation of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in Different Learning Environments.” Journal of Instructional Psychology 32, no. 2 (2008): 

113–19. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-181365758/anempirical-investigation-of-student-achievement. 

Lodico, Marguerite G., Dean T. Spaulding, and Katherine H. Voegtle. Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice. 2nd ed. Hoboken, 

NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2010. 

Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2009.

Napier, Nanette P., Sonal Dekhane, and Stella Smith. “Transitioning to 

Blended Learning: Understanding Student and Instructor Perceptions.” 

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 15, no. 1 (February 2011): 

20–32. https://doi:10.24059/olj.v15i1.188. 

Naval Education and Training Command. Strategic Plan 2013–2023, 2013. 

https://www.netc.navy.mil/_documents/NETC%20Strategic%20Plan%20

2013_2023.pdf.

Nichols, Joe. “Comparing Educational Leadership Course and Professor 

Evaluations in On-line and Traditional Instructional Formats: What are 

the Students Saying?” College Student Journal 45 no. 4 (December 2011): 

862–68. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-278276708/comparing-educational-leadership-course-and-professor. 
38

Palloff, Rena M. and Keith Pratt. “Making the Transition: Helping Teachers 

to Teach Online.” Working paper. Educause 2000, Nashville, TN, 10–13 

March 2000. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED452806.pdf. 

Palmer, Laura, John M. O’Donnell, Dianxu Ren, and Richard Henker. 

“Comparison of Nurse Anesthesia Student 12 Lead EKG Knowledge, 

Integration, Skill, Satisfaction, and Attitude: Traditional Instruction vs. 

Asynchronous Online Video Lecture.” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 10, no. 2 (September 2014): 420–35. jolt.merlot.org/

vol10no3/Palmer_0914.pdf. 

Rabe-Hemp, Cara, Susan Woollen, and Gail Humiston. “A Comparative 

Analysis of Student Engagement, Learning, and Satisfaction in Lecture 

Hall and Online Learning Settings.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10, no. 2 (2009): 207–18. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ864053. 

Salmon, Gilly. E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, 3rd 

ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2011.

Schmidt, Steven W. and Vivian W. Mott. “Development of a Graduate Education Program for U.S. Army Interns and Careerists.” New Directions 

for Adult and Continuing Education 136 (Winter 2012): 41–51. https://

doi:10.1002/ace.20034.

Schulman, Carl I., George D. Garcia, Mary M. Wyckoff, Robert C. Duncan, 

Kelly F. Withum, and Jill Graygo. “Mobile Learning Module Improves 

Knowledge of Medical Shock for Forward Surgical Team Members.” 

Military Medicine 177, no. 11 (November 2012): 1316–21. http://militarymedicine.amsus.org/doi/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00155.

Sherrill, Windsor Westgate and Khoa Truong. “Traditional Teaching vs. Hybrid Instruction: Course Evaluation and Student Performance in Health 

Services Management Education.” Journal of Health Administration 

Education 27, no. 4 (January 2010): 253–68. https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263124237.

Starr-Glass, David. “Experiences with Military Online Learners: Toward 

a Mindful Practice.” Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9, 

no. 3 (September 2013): 353–63. http:// jolt.merlot.org/vol9no3/starrglass_0913.pdf.

Steinbronn, Peggy E. and Eunice M. Merideth. “Perceived Utility of Methods 

and Instructional Strategies Used in Online and Face-to-Face Teaching Environments.” Innovative Higher Education 32, no. 5 (March 2008): 

265–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9058-4.

Ting, Siu-Man Raymond and Laura M. Gonzalez. “Quality of Interactions in 

Face-to-Face and Hybrid Career Development Courses: An Exploration 

of Students’ Perceptions.” Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teach-
39

ing 9, no. 3 (September 2013): 316-27. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no3/

ting_0913.htm.

Triola, Mario F. Elementary Statistics. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2012. 

United States Army Doctrine and Training Command. The U.S. Army 

Learning Concept for 2015. TRADOC pamphlet 525-8-2. Fort Eustis, 

VA. 6 June 2011. http://sillwww.army.mil/DOTD/divisions/pdd/docs/

Army%20Learning%20Model%202015.pdf.

Wiechowski, Linda and Terri L. Washburn. “Online Finance and Economics Courses: A Comparative Study of Course Satisfaction and Outcomes 

across Learning Models.” American Journal of Business Education 7, no. 1 

(2014): 37–48. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v7i1.8318. 

Wlodkowski, Raymond J. Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive Guide for Teaching All Adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 

2008.

York, Reginald O. “Comparing Three Modes of Instruction in a Graduate Social Work Program.” Journal of Social Work Education 44, no. 

2 (2008): 157–72. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5175/

JSWE.2008.200700031.

Young, Suzanne and Heather E. Duncan. “Online and Face-to-Face Teaching: How Do Student Ratings Differ?” MERLOT Journal of Online 

Learning and Teaching 10, no. 1 (March 2014): 70–79. jolt.merlot.org/

vol10no1/young_0314.pdf.