The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of traditional, blended and e‐learning on students' achievement in higher education
Open accessAbstract
The study investigates the effect of e‐learning, blended learning and classroom learning on students’ achievement. Two experimental groups together with a control group from U mm A l‐Q ura U niversity in S audi A rabia were identified randomly. To assess students’ achievement in the different groups, pre‐ and post‐achievement tests were used. The results of the study (N = 148) show that there was a statistically significant difference between the three methods in terms of students’ achievement favouring the blended learning method (n = 55) with a substantial effect size of 1.34 (H edges’ g). No significant difference was found between the e‐learning (n = 43) and traditional learning groups (n = 50) in terms of students’ achievement and with a negligible effect size of 0.02.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2001) · Cited by 25,534
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203029053 · Cited by 20,105
(1991) · Cited by 15,554
Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2007) · Cited by 6,278
Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research
Richardson, J. T. E. (2011) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001 · Cited by 3,465
Hattie, J. (2008) · doi:10.4324/9780203887332 · Cited by 3,051
Clark, R. C., Mayer, R. E., & Thalheimer, W. (2003) · Performance Improvement · doi:10.1002/pfi.4930420510 · Cited by 2,257
e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same?
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001 · Cited by 2,042
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074003379 · Cited by 1,761
Spss Survival Manual: A Step By Step Guide To Data Analysis Using Spss For Windows (version 10)
Pallant, J. (2001) · Cited by 1,524
Cited by
Szymkowiak, A., Melović, B., Dabić, M., Jeganathan, K., & Kundi, G. S. (2021) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565 · Cited by 893
Tracking e-learning through published papers: A systematic review
Rodrigues, H., Almeida, F., Figueiredo, V., & Lopes, S. L. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.007 · Cited by 399
Yildirim, I. (2017) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.02.002 · Cited by 320
Evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning using the ARCS model
Ma, L., & Lee, C. S. (2021) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12579 · Cited by 132
Effectiveness of Gamification Elements in Blended Learning Environments
MESE, C., & DURSUN, O. O. (2019) · Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.17718/tojde.601914 · Cited by 83
Metadata
- Authors
- Al‐Qahtani, A. A. Y., & Higgins, S. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-08-23
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 220-234
- ISSN
- 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2729
- OpenAlex
- W1934129801
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 38.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of traditional, blended and e‐learning on students' achievement in higher education. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00490.x
- The paper
- Al‐Qahtani, A. A. Y., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and e‐learning on students' achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00490.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
