International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

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

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 6 (June 2025), Pages: 21-34

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

A comparison of traditional, online, and hybrid learning models in accounting and finance education: Student perceptions and academic outcomes

 Author(s): 

 Raed Awashreh 1, Hisham Al Ghunaimi 2, *, Almi Hassiba 3

 Affiliation(s):

  1Management Department, A’Sharqiyah University, Ibra, Oman
  2Accounting Department, A’Sharqiyah University, Ibra, Oman
  3Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences, Badji Mokhtar, Annaba University, Annaba, Algeria

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5494-2242

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.06.003

 Abstract

This study investigates the learning preferences of undergraduate and postgraduate students in accounting and finance, focusing on the influence of academic level, nationality, and cultural background. A survey of 600 students from Algeria, Egypt, Palestine, and Oman revealed significant differences in learning approaches across these groups. The results show that postgraduate students tend to prefer digital tools and interactive methods, reflecting their greater familiarity with technology, while undergraduate students are more inclined toward traditional face-to-face learning. National and cultural factors were found to play an important role in shaping students’ views on both traditional and digital learning methods. The findings are interpreted through the lenses of differentiated learning theory, blended learning, and the cultural theory of education. This study suggests that educational institutions should consider these diverse preferences when designing curricula, promoting the integration of both traditional and digital approaches. The potential of hybrid learning models to enhance academic performance and student satisfaction is highlighted, supporting the need for more personalized teaching strategies. Future research is recommended to explore regional and subject-specific differences, examine the effects of hybrid learning on student outcomes, and assess how instructors adapt to digital teaching tools.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Learning preferences, Hybrid learning, Cultural differences, Digital tools, Accounting education

 Article history

 Received 10 January 2025, Received in revised form 29 April 2025, Accepted 21 May 2025

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

  Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

The study adhered to ethical guidelines for research involving human participants. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study and provided their voluntary consent before participation. No personally identifiable information was collected, and data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality. The research protocol was reviewed and deemed exempt from formal ethics committee approval due to the non-invasive nature of the survey and the anonymity of responses.

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

 Citation:

 Awashreh R, Al Ghunaimi H, and Hassiba A (2025). A comparison of traditional, online, and hybrid learning models in accounting and finance education: Student perceptions and academic outcomes. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(6): 21-34

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

  Fig. 1 

 Tables

  Table 1   Table 2  Table 3  Table 4

----------------------------------------------   

 References (33)

  1. Abacioglu CS, Epskamp S, Fischer AH, and Volman M (2023). Effects of multicultural education on student engagement in low-and high-concentration classrooms: The mediating role of student relationships. Learning Environments Research, 26(3): 951-975.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-023-09462-0    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abou-El-Sood H (2024). Integrating QuickBooks® in financial accounting classrooms: Evidence from the UAE. Accounting Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2024.2367136    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alenezi M, Wardat S, and Akour M (2023). The need of integrating digital education in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. Sustainability, 15(6): 4782.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064782    [Google Scholar]
  4. Almusharraf N and Khahro S (2020). Students satisfaction with online learning experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(21): 246-267.  https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i21.15647    [Google Scholar]
  5. AlQashouti NM, Yaqot M, and Menezes BC (2024). Online learning and teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic in higher education in Qatar. Sustainability, 16(6): 2265.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062265    [Google Scholar]
  6. Awashreh R (2024). Omani private universities: Debates between progress in human development but weak education quality. The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership, 32(1): 1-15.  https://doi.org/10.18848/2329-1656/CGP/v32i01/1-15    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barrot JS, Llenares II, and Del Rosario LS (2021). Students' online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6): 7321-7338.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10589-x    [Google Scholar] PMid:34075300 PMCid:PMC8162157
  8. Basar ZM, Mansor AN, Jamaludin KA, and Alias BS (2021). The effectiveness and challenges of online learning for secondary school students: A case study. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(3): 119-129.  https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i3.14514    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bastos SM, Oliveira HC, and Caggiano V (2021). Hybrid model in accounting education: The experience of management simulation course. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 16(5): 2402-2411.  https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i5.6345    [Google Scholar]
  10. Boulianne E (2014). Impact of accounting software utilization on students' knowledge acquisition: An important change in accounting education. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 10(1): 22-48.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-12-2011-0064    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bradley VM (2021). Learning management system (LMS) use with online instruction. International Journal of Technology in Education, 4(1): 68-92.  https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.36    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen CC and Jones KT (2007). Blended learning vs. traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA accounting course. Journal of Educators Online, 4: 1.  https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2007.1.3    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eden CA, Chisom ON, and Adeniyi IS (2024). Harnessing technology integration in education: Strategies for enhancing learning outcomes and equity. World Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology and Sciences, 11(2): 1-8.  https://doi.org/10.30574/wjaets.2024.11.2.0071    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hafeez M and Akhter Y (2021). Effects of blended learning in comparison of traditional learning to provide safer learning environment: A comparative review. International Journal of Educational Research and Social Sciences, 2(6): 1604-1615.  https://doi.org/10.51601/ijersc.v2i6.209    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haleem A, Javaid M, Qadri MA, and Suman R (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3: 275-285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004    [Google Scholar]
  16. Inusah N and Debrah O (2021). Perceived effectiveness of online teaching and learning of accounting during COVID-19 pandemic and its influencing factors. International Journal of Learning and Development, 12(1): 30-51.  https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v12i1.19804    [Google Scholar]
  17. 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: 7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4    [Google Scholar]
  18. Li KC, Wong BT, Kwan R, Chan HT, Wu MM, and Cheung SK (2023). Evaluation of hybrid learning and teaching practices: The perspective of academics. Sustainability, 15(8): 6780.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086780    [Google Scholar]
  19. Manikutty S, Anuradha NS, and Hansen K (2007). Does culture influence learning styles in higher education? International Journal of Learning and Change, 2(1): 70-87.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLC.2007.014896    [Google Scholar]
  20. Markey K, Graham MM, Tuohy D, McCarthy J, O'Donnell C, Hennessy T, Fahy A, and O'Brien B (2023). Navigating learning and teaching in expanding culturally diverse higher education settings. Higher Education Pedagogies, 8(1): 2165527.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2023.2165527    [Google Scholar]
  21. Marriott N (2004). Using computerized business simulations and spreadsheet models in accounting education: A case study. Accounting Education, 13(sup1): 55-70.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0963928042000310797    [Google Scholar]
  22. Meade JA and Parthasarathy K (2024). Does student engagement impact learning differently in face-to-face and virtual accounting classes? Issues in Accounting Education, 39(2): 71-83.  https://doi.org/10.2308/ISSUES-2023-009    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mistry U, Megally R, and Aly Rashed R (2024). Students' preferences for teaching and exam delivery modes in accounting education post-COVID-19 pandemic. Accounting Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2024.2341242    [Google Scholar]
  24. Monteiro V, Carvalho C, and Santos NN (2021). Creating a supportive classroom environment through effective feedback: Effects on students' school identification and behavioral engagement. Frontiers in Education, 6: 661736.  https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.661736    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mulenga R and Shilongo H (2025). Hybrid and blended learning models: Innovations, challenges, and future directions in education. Acta Pedagogia Asiana, 4(1): 1-13.  https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v4i1.495    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ou S (2024). Transforming education: The evolving role of artificial intelligence in the students academic performance. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 13(2): 163-173.  https://doi.org/10.54097/cc1x7r95    [Google Scholar]
  27. Scagnoli NI, Buki L, and Johnson SD (2009). The influence of online teaching on face-to-face teaching practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 13(2): 117-128.  https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v13i2.1671    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sheard J (2018). Quantitative data analysis. In: Williamson Kand Johanson G (Eds.), Research Methods: Information, Systems, and Contexts: 429-452. 2nd Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102220-7.00018-2    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sulaiman NA, Shahimi S, and Zakaria Z (2021). Student-centred, lecturer-centred, and hybrid teaching methods: Impacts on accounting students' technical and soft skills. Asian Journal of Accounting Perspectives, 14(2): 67-92.  https://doi.org/10.22452/AJAP.vol14no2.4    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sweller J (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68: 1-16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tai J, Ajjawi R, and Umarova A (2024). How do students experience inclusive assessment? A critical review of contemporary literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(9): 1936-1953.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011441    [Google Scholar]
  32. Tettamanzi P, Minutiello V, and Murgolo M (2023). Accounting education and digitalization: A new perspective after the pandemic. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(3): 100847.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100847    [Google Scholar]
  33. Venkat MV, O'Sullivan PS, Young JQ, and Sewell JL (2020). Using cognitive load theory to improve teaching in the clinical workplace. MedEdPORTAL, 16: 10983.  https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10983    [Google Scholar] PMid:33083535 PMCid:PMC7549387