International Journal of


EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 6 (June 2023), Pages: 36-47


 Original Research Paper

Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning styles in the post-COVID-19 era at Umm Alqura University


 Ahmed D. Alharthi 1, Khaled H. Almotairi 1, Waleed T. Elsigini 2, 3, *


 1College of Computer and Information Systems, Umm Alqura University, Mecca, Saudi Arabia
 2Deanship of E-Learning and Distance Education, Umm Alqura University, Mecca, Saudi Arabia
 3Faculty of Education, Mansoura University, El-Mansoura, Egypt

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile:

 Digital Object Identifier:


This research aims to assess student satisfaction with blended learning styles in the post-COVID-19 era at Umm Alqura University, taking into consideration the variables of gender, study level, and academic major. The study utilizes a descriptive analysis methodology to evaluate student satisfaction, employing a sample of 248 students enrolled at Umm Alqura University during the 2021–2022 academic year. A satisfaction questionnaire was developed and administered to collect the necessary data from the participants, ensuring the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. The research findings indicate a high level of satisfaction among university students towards the various blended learning styles, namely the Rotation Model, Lab Rotation, Flipped Classroom, and Individual Rotation. Statistical analysis reveals no significant differences in the mean scores of student satisfaction across different study groups, indicating a consistent level of satisfaction with the blended learning styles, including individual rotation, flipped classroom, lab rotation, and rotation model. Furthermore, there are no statistically significant differences in satisfaction levels between male and female students. Similarly, no significant differences are observed in satisfaction levels between bachelor and postgraduate students. However, a statistically significant difference is found between scientific specialization students and literary specialization students, favoring the literary specialization students' approval of the blended learning style. These research findings contribute to the understanding of the blended learning environment and its associated styles. Moreover, the results highlight the need for further investigation into the effectiveness of blended learning and its various patterns in promoting diverse learning outcomes.

 © 2023 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

 Keywords: COVID-19, Blended learning, Evaluating, Higher education, Satisfaction

 Article History: Received 14 December 2022, Received in revised form 1 April 2023, Accepted 5 April 2023


The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship of Scientific Research at Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through Grant Code: 22UQU4340432DSR01.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.


 Alharthi AD, Almotairi KH, and Elsigini WT (2023). Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning styles in the post-COVID-19 era at Umm Alqura University. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(6): 36-47

 Permanent Link to this page


 No Figure


 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 


 References (49)

  1. Al-Agami H (2021). The attitudes of Arab open university students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia towards blended learning and the difficulties facing its application from their perspectives. Journal of the Association of Arab Universities for Research in Higher Education, 41(3): 1-17.
  2. Al-Agami S (2018). Obstacles of the application of blended learning in the secondary stage in Kuwait from the point of view of teachers. The Specialized International Educational Journal, 7(3): 46-55. PMCid:PMC6245551
  3. Alanzi A (2018). The level of quality of blended e-learning and the obstacles of employment in the computer course from the perspective of students at the Northern University in the light of some variables. Journal of the Faculty of Education, Al-Azhar University, 37(177): 113-199.
  4. Al-Fraihat D, Joy M, and Sinclair J (2020). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102: 67-86.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Alharthi A, Yamani H, and Elsigini W (2021). Gender differences and learner satisfaction: An evaluation of e-learning systems at Umm A-Qura University. Journal of Distance Learning and Open Learning, 9(17), 14-49.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Alotaibi AE (2021). Gender differences in social presence in gender-segregated and blended learning environments in Saudi Arabia. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Basak SK, Wotto M, and Belanger P (2018). E-learning, m-learning and d-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E-learning and Digital Media, 15(4): 191-216.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Boelens R, Van Laer S, De Wever B, and Elen J (2015). Blended learning in adult education: Towards a definition of blended learning. Project Report WP2-15.06.2015. Available online at:   [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonk J and Graham R (2004). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer Publishing, San Francisco, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Bowyer J and Chambers L (2017). Evaluating blended learning: Bringing the elements together. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication, 23(1): 17-26.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Chaeruman U (2011). Implementing blended learning in higher education. The 16th International Seminar of Edcuational Technology: Learning, Community and Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Jakarta State University in Collaboration with IPTPI, Jakarta, Indonesia.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Chandra KR, Tatte E, Ramachandran M, and Saravanan V (2022). Understanding blended learning advantages and limitations. Contemporaneity of Language and Literature in the Robotized Millennium, 4(1): 10-18.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Cleveland-Innes M and Wilton D (2018). Guide to blended learning. Teaching/Learning Resource, Commonwealth of Learning, Vancouver, Canada.   [Google Scholar]
  14. David R, Pellini A, Jordan K, and Philips T (2020). Education during the COVID-19 crisis: Opportunities and constraints of using EdTech in low-income countries. Zenodo, Honolulu, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Diabat B (2013). Effectiveness of programmed learning based upon the use of blended and traditional learning methods in the achievement of Tafila technical university students in the course "methods of teaching for early graders" and their attitudes towards programmed learning. An-Najah University Journal for Research-B (Humanities), 27(1): 181-200.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Dos B (2014). Developing and evaluating a blended learning course. The Anthropologist, 17(1): 121-128.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Dziuban C and Moskal P (2011). A course is a course is a course: Factor invariance in student evaluation of online, blended and face-to-face learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4): 236-241.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Fabbri L, Giampaolo M, and Capaccioli M (2020). Blended learning and transformative processes: A model for didactic development and innovation. In the 2nd International Workshop of Bridges and Mediation in Higher Distance Education (HELMeTO 2020), Springer International Publishing, Bari, Italy: 214-225.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Fortin A, Viger C, Deslandes M, Callimaci A, and Desforges P (2019). Accounting students’ choice of blended learning format and its impact on performance and satisfaction. Accounting Education, 28(4): 353-383.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Ghorab H, Al-Khaldi J, and Ghorab A (2013). Blinded-learning assessment in the university college of applied sciences from the viewpoint of teachers and students. In the 1st International Conference on Applied Sciences (ICAS2013). Available online at: 
  21. Han F and Ellis RA (2021). Patterns of student collaborative learning in blended course designs based on their learning orientations: A student approaches to learning perspective. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1): 1-16.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Holm LB, Rognes A, and Dahl FA (2022). The FLIPPED STEP study: A randomized controlled trial of flipped vs. traditional classroom teaching in a university-level statistics and epidemiology course. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3: 100197.   [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoofman J and Secord E (2021). The effect of COVID-19 on education. Pediatric Clinics, 68(5): 1071-1079.   [Google Scholar] PMid:34538299 PMCid:PMC8445757
  24. Horn MB and Staker H (2011). The rise of K–12 blended learning. Innosight Institute, Inc., Lexington, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Hubackova S and Semradova I (2016). Evaluation of blended learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217: 551-557.   [Google Scholar]
  26. ION (2008). Quality online course initiative. Illinois Online Network, Springfield, USA. 
  27. Ismail AGZ (2009). E-learning from application to professionalism and quality. Alam El-Kotob Publishers, Cairo, Egypt. 
  28. Ismail AT, Shaaban HA, Quliqila HJ, and Altabagh HA (2017). Effect of different two blended models (flipped/ flexible) in the development of cognitive achievement and performance skills of using some Web 3.0 tools for educational technology students. In The 4th Annual International Scientific Conference of the Faculty of Specific Education, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt. 
  29. Kintu MJ, Zhu C, and Kagambe E (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1): 1-20.   [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuzmina T and Golechkova T (2012). A comparative evaluation of alternative blended learning models used for teaching academic English (EAP/ESAP) to students of computer sciences. Education, 2(7): 311-317.   [Google Scholar]
  31. Larsari VN, Dhuli R, and Chenari H (2023). Station rotation model of blended learning as generative technology in education: An evidence-based research. In: Motahhir S and Bossoufi B (Eds.), Digital technologies and applications. ICDTA 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Vol 668. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.   [Google Scholar]
  32. Milheim WD (2006). Strategies for the design and delivery of blended learning courses. Educational Technology, 46(6): 44-47.   [Google Scholar]
  33. Mirriahi N, Alonzo D, and Fox B (2015). A blended learning framework for curriculum design and professional development. Research in Learning Technology, 23: 28451.   [Google Scholar]
  34. Orabi SM, Mansi TI, al-Awamleh AA, and Bayyat MM (2020). The effect of a blended learning teaching approach on developing students life skills at the school of physical education at the University of Jordan. Jordanian Educational Journal, 5(3): 169-189.   [Google Scholar]
  35. Owston R, York D, and Finkel J (2013). Evaluation of blended and online learning courses in the faculty of liberal arts and professional studies and the faculty of health. Technical Report No. 2013-2, York University, Toronto, Canada.   [Google Scholar]
  36. Palloff RM and Pratt K (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  37. PERC (2014). Blended learning: Defining models and examining conditions to support implementation. PERC Research Brief, Philadelphia Education Research Consortium, Philadelphia, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  38. Perianto A and Nur S (2021). The effectiveness of blended learning model during COVID-19 pandemic on automotive engineering major program students of SMK Negeri 10 Samarinda. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 6(11): 156-162.   [Google Scholar]
  39. Pombo L and Moreira A (2012). Evaluation framework for blended learning courses: A puzzle piece for the evaluation process. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(3): 201-211.   [Google Scholar]
  40. Reed P (2014). Staff experience and attitudes towards technology enhanced learning initiatives in one faculty of health and life sciences. Research in Learning Technology, 22: 22770.   [Google Scholar]
  41. Sancho P, Corral R, Rivas T, González MJ, Chordi A, and Tejedor C (2006). A blended learning experience for teaching microbiology. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(5): 120.   [Google Scholar] PMid:17149449 PMCid:PMC1637024
  42. Savoie-Roskos MR, Bevan S, Charlton R, and Israelsen Graf M (2018). Approaches to evaluating blended courses. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 2(1): 3-11.   [Google Scholar]
  43. Suleiman MA and Al-Sayed M (2016). The effect of different blended learning styles on the development of achievement, electronic interaction skills, and the survival of the effect of learning among students of educational technologies at the College of Education. Journal of Studies in University Education, 33(33): 427-511.   [Google Scholar]
  44. Szadziewska A and Kujawski J (2017). Advantages and disadvantages of the blended-learning method used in the educational process at the faculty of management at the University of Gdansk, in the opinion of undergraduate students. In the 10th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, IATED, Seville, Spain: 3938-3946.   [Google Scholar]
  45. Tong DH, Uyen BP, and Ngan LK (2022). The effectiveness of blended learning on students' academic achievement, self-study skills and learning attitudes: A quasi-experiment study in teaching the conventions for coordinates in the plane. Heliyon, 8(12).   [Google Scholar] PMid:36643330
  46. Vaughan N, Reali A, Stenbom S, Van Vuuren MJ, and MacDonald D (2017). Blended learning from design to evaluation: International case studies of evidence-based practice. Online Learning, 21(3): 103-114.   [Google Scholar]
  47. Verde A and Valero JM (2021). Teaching and learning modalities in higher education during the pandemic: Responses to coronavirus disease 2019 From Spain. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 648592.   [Google Scholar] PMid:34504455 PMCid:PMC8421804
  48. Yulia H (2020). Online learning to prevent the spread of pandemic corona virus in Indonesia. Eternal (English Teaching Journal), 11(1): 48-56.   [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang Y and Wang W (2020). Student evaluation of blended learning for basketball courses in universities: Analysis from knowledge, skill and attitude. In the 9th International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology, IEEE, Porto, Portugal: 139-142.   [Google Scholar]