Blended learning and its relationship to effective student participation among university students in light of the Corona pandemic 2020-2021
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31973/aj.v2i144.3997Keywords:
blended learning, effective Student engagement, university studentsAbstract
Effective blended learning plays on the strengths of face-to-face and online learning, and combines the best of both approaches to facilitate the best learning outcomes for students.It helps students gain more understanding of the subject, develops their cognitive and social skills and their different cultural backgrounds, and contributes to developing their preferences in their thinking styles and the diversity of their scientific competencies. Technology supports this differentiation, as it accommodates students with special needs and different educational interests and effective Student engagement refers to the quality and quantity of students ’psychological, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to the learning process, as well as academic and social activities inside and outside the classroom.
And since university students are living a new reality imposed on them by the Corona (COVID-19) pandemic of inability to continue continuously from traditional learning, so the importance of blended learning has emerged for university students, and their effective engagement. The importance of effective engagement is also increasing, and the importance of blended learning in the era of progress supported by technology to ensure the continued provision of valuable education at the university level, so the researcher chose to be the research sample university students.
The research problem was summarized by the following question: How effective is blended learning among university students? Do they have effective engagement? Is there a correlation between blended learning and, effective Students engagement among university students?
The current research aims to identify:
- 1. Blended learning among university students.
- 2. Knowing the significant differences in the level of blended education according to the gender variable (male-female) and specialization (scientific – humanities).
- 3. effective Student engagement among university students.
- 4. Knowing the significant differences in effective Student engagement according to the variable of gender (male-female) and specialization (scientific-human).
- 5. The correlation between blended learning and effective Student engagement among university students.
In order to achieve the objectives of the research, (940) male and female students were selected from the students of the colleges, including scientific ones, including (College of Biomedical Informatics, College of Business Informatics, College of Dentistry) and Humanities (College of Arts, College of Education) from the Iraqi governmental universities in Baghdad, and they were selected in an intentional manner. Because of their application of the blended learning system, the researcher built the blended learning scale, based on the definition of Davis Tang and Chaw (DavisTang & Chaw, 2013).and Based on the theory of technology acceptance in 1986, the items of the scale consisted of (36) items distributed over six dimensions, which are (flexibility of education, online learning, study management, technology, teaching in the classroom, interaction via the Internet).
The effective Student engagement scale was also built based on the definition and theory of Gunuk and Kuzu (Gunuc & Kuzu, 2015). The effective Student engagement items were (40) items distributed into two dimensions (campus participation, class participation). The discriminatory power was extracted by two methods of the two extreme groups, the relation of the paragraph to the total degree. The validity and reliability were extracted, so the two scales were ready to be applied to the research sample, and after the data was applied and processed according to the statistical bag (spss).
The results showed the following:
- 1. University students have a high level of blended education (male-female).
- 2. There are no statistically significant differences in blended learning among university students, according to the gender variable, while there are statistically significant differences in the specialization variable in favor of scientific specialization.
- 3. University students have a high level of effective Student engagement (male-female).
- 4. There are no statistically significant differences in the effective Student engagement of university students, according to the variables of gender and specialization.
- There is a positive correlation between blended learning and effective Student engagement among university students.
In the light of the results, a number of recommendations and proposals were made, including:
Recommendations: The relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, should hold courses and workshops for cadres based on blended education to develop their knowledge of digital technologies and the process of creating content, which motivates students to use the blended learning mechanism effectively.
Suggestions: The researcher suggests conducting a study dealing with the relationship between blended learning and effective cognitive engagement among sixth preparatory students, and the relationship of blended education with sensory-perceptual preferences and learning styles according to patterns of brain dominance.
Downloads
References
Akkoyunlu, B. & Soylu, M. Y. (2006). “A Study on Students' Views About Blended Learning Environment”. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 7 (3).
Alberts, P. P. & Murray, L. A. & Stephenson, J. E. (2010). Eight Educational Considerations for Hybrid Learning, Chapter 12 of: F. L. Wang, J. Fong, and R. C. Kwan (EDs). Handbook of Research on Hybrid Learning Models: Advanced Tools, Technologies, and Applications. (PP. 185-203), New York: Information Science Reference.
Alexander, M. (2009). An exploration of the relationship between student engagement and academic performance of undergraduate students at a public historically black higher education institution in the Southeast. Unpublished D. dissertation. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Available.
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow–Today (2008). Apple Inc. California. Available from http://www.apple.com/education/docs/Apple-ACOT2Whitepaper.pdf.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45 , 369–386.
Appleton, J. J., S. L. Christenson, D. Kim, and A. L. Reschly. 2006. “Measuring Cognitive and Psychological Engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument.” Journal of School Psychology 44 (5): 427–445.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Azizan, F.Z. (2010). Blended Learning in Higher Education Institution in Malaysia. Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The student-teacher relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35 , 61–79.
Bliuc, A.-M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 231-244. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.08.001.
Bond, M. (2019). Flipped learning and parent engagement in secondary schools: A South Australian case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3).
Conner, J. O., & Pope, D. C. (2013). Not just robo-students: why full engagement matters and how schools can promote it. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(9), 1426–1442. doi:10.1007/s10964- 013-9948-y.
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
Davis, H.C. & Fill, K. (2007). “Embedding blended learning in a university’s teaching culture: Experiences and reflections”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (5).
De George-Walker, L., & Keeffe, M. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: a case study of blended learning design. Higher Education Research & Development, 29, 1-13.
Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2007). “Students’ Perceptions on Effective Dimensions of Interactive Learning in a Blended Learning Environment”. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (2), 133-146.
Dias, S. B., & Diniz, J. A. (2014). Towards an enhanced learning management system for blended learning in higher education incorporating distinct learners’ profiles. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 307–319.
Dziuban, C. D., Moskal, P. D. & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning, and the generations: Knowledge is power, no more. In: J. Bourne & JC. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004). “Blended learning”. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fredricks, J. A. (2015). Academic engagement. In J. Wright (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 31e36). Oxford: Elsevie
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education,7, 95−105.
Gómez, L.A.O. & Duart, J.M. (2011). “A hybrid approach to university subject learning activities”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2).
Goodenow, C. 1992. “School Motivation, Engagement, and Sense of Belonging among Urban Adolescent Students.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April.
Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Mikami, A. Y., Hafen, C. A., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). Effects of a professional development program on behavioral engagement of students in middle and high school. Psychology in the Schools, 51(2), 143–163. doi:10.1002/pits.21741.
Gülbahar, Y. & Madran, R.O. (2009). “Communication and Collaboration, Satisfaction, Equity, and Autonomy in Blended Learning Environments: A Case from Turkey”. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 (2).
Günüç, S., & Kuzu, A. (2014). Factors Influencing Student Engagement and the Role of Technology in Student Engagement in Higher Education: Campus-Class-Technology Theory. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4).
Gunuc, S., & Kuzu, A. (2015). Student engagement scale: development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 587-610.
Hameed, Sh., Badii, A., & Cullen, A.J. (2008). “Effective E-Learning Integration with Traditional Learning in a Blended Learning Environment”. European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems.
Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1), 41-61.
Harper, S. R., Carini, R. M., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2004). Gender differences in student engagement among African American undergraduates at historically Black colleges and universities. Journal of College Student Development, 45(3), 271-284.
Hausmann, L., J. Schofield, and R. Woods. 2007. “Sense of Belonging as a Predictor of Intentions to Persist among African American and White First-year College Students.” Research in Higher Education 48 (7): 803–839.
Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H. J., & Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: a literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 117– 127. doi:10.1080/21567069.2011.586677.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1499–1509.
Hu, S., & Kuht, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: the influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555–575. doi:10.2307/40197272.
Hu, S., and G. D. Kuh. 2001. “Being (Dis) Engaged in Educationally Purposeful Activities: The Influences of Student and Institutional Characteristics.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, April 10–14.
Jones, V., Jo, J. H. & Cranitch, G. (2003). Hyweb: a blended e-learning solution for the delivery of tertiary education. Paper presented in IADIS international conference e-society, Australia.
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing Student Engagement in Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773.
Kasraie, N., & Alahmad, A. (2014). Investigating the reasons institutions of higher education in the USA and Canada utilize blended learning1.
Kazmi, A. (2010). Sleepwalking through undergrad: Using student engagement as an institutional alarm clock. The College Quarterly, 13 (1). Available from http://www.collegequarterly.ca/2010-vol13-num01- winter/kazmi.html. Accessed on 21 March 2011.
Khechine, H., Lakhal, S., Pascot, D., & Bytha, A. (2014). UTAUT model for blended learning: The role of gender and age in the intention to use webinars. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 10(1), 33-52.
Kuh, G.D. Cruce, T.M. Shoup, R. Kinzie, J. & Gonyea, R.M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (5) 540-563.
Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: Predictive of children’s achievement trajectories from fi rst to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 , 190–206.
Li, Y., J. V. Lerner, and R. M. Lerner. 2010. “Personal and Ecological Assets and Academic Competence in Early Adolescence: The Mediating Role of School Engagement.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39 (7): 801–815.
Li-Ling, H. (2011). Blended learning in ethics education: a survey of nursing students. Nursing Ethics, 18(3), 418-430.
Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). “Learner and Instructional Factors Influencing Learning Outcomes within a Blended Learning Environment”. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 282–293.
Lim, D.H., Morris, M. L., & kupritz, V.W. (2006). “Online vs. Blended Learning: Differences in Instructional Outcomes and Learner Satisfaction”. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov.
Lindsay, E. B. (2004). The best of both worlds: Teaching a hybrid course Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8, Available at: http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/cho2738z4.htm.
Macdonald, J. (2008). Blended Learning and Online Tutoring Planning Learner Support and Activity Design, England: Gover Publishing Company.
Masrom, M. (2007). Technology acceptance model and e-learning. Technology, 21(24), 81.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions:comparing the technology acceptance model with theory of planned behavior. Infromation Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191.
Matthews, K. E., V. Andrews, and P. Adams. 2011. “Social Learning Spaces and Student Engagement.” Higher Education Research and Development 30 (2): 105–120.
McMillan, D. W. & Chavis, D. M. (1986). “Sense of Community: A definition and theory”. Journal of Community Psychology, 14 (1).
Miller, G. (2014). History of distance learning. WorldWideLearn.com. Retrieved from http://www.worldwidelearn.com/education-articles/history-of-distance-learning.html.
Mohd, I. H., Hussein, N., Aluwi, A. H., & Omar, M. K. (2016, December). Enhancing students engagement through blended learning satisfaction and lecturer support. In 2016 IEEE 8th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED) (pp. 175-180). IEEE.
Morris, M.G., & Dillon, A. (1997). The influence of user perceptions on software utilization: application and evaluation of a theoretical model of technology acceptance, IEEE Software, 14(4), 56-75.
Munson, C. E. (2010). Assessment of the Efficacy of Blended Learning in anIntroductory Pharmacy Class, Unpublished Dissertation in university of Kansas,by proquest llc.
Nakamaru, S. (2012). Investment and return: Wiki engagement in a “remedial” ESL writing course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(4), 273–291.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-learning and Digital Media, 2, 17-26.
Owston, R., et al. (2006). Blended learning at Canadian universities: Issues and practices. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 338-350). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Pape, L. (2010). Blended Teaching & learning: developing courses that combine face-toface and virtual instruction in pursuit of 21st-century skills in classrooms, School Administrator, 67 (4). p:16.
Pelletier, L. G., Seguin-Levesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 , 186–196
Perera, I. (2010).”What will users expect from virtual learning methods?—A conceptual model to analyze future leaning method enhancements”. US-China Education Review, 7 (11).
Rahman, N. A. A., Hussein, N., & Aluwi, A. H. (2015). Satisfaction on blended learning in a public higher education institution: What factors matter?. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 211, 768-775.
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172). Springer, Boston, MA.
Rooney, J. E. (2003). Blending learning opportunities to enhance educational programming and meetings. Association Management, 55(5), 26- 32.
Rovai, A.P, & Jordan, H.P. (2004). “Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses”. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5 (2).
Russel, B. & Slater, G.R. (2011). Factors that encourage student engagement: Insights from a case study of 'first time' students in a New Zealand University. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 8 (1) 1-15.
Sahni, J. (2019). Does Blended Learning Enhance Student Engagement? Evidence from Higher Education. Journal of e-Learning and Higher Education, 2019, 1-14.
Sethy, S.S. (2008). “Distance Education in the Age of Globalization: An Overwhelming Desire towards Blended Learning”. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9 (3).
Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43, 51−54 Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90.
Soylu (2006) which indicated high demands for face-to-face interaction in on line learning.
Sun, J. C., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and selfregulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 191–204. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x.
Tang, C., & Chaw, L. (2013). Readiness for blended learning: Understanding attitude of university students. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 6(2), 79-100.
Tayebinik, M. (2009). “The Effect of Learning Style and Motivation on EFL Achievement Test in Virtual Learning Environments”. MA dissertation, Payame Noor University, Tehran.
Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M. (2013). Blended Learning or E-learning?. Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M.(2012). Blended Learning or E-learning, 103-110.
Teoh, H. C., Abdullah, M. C., Roslan, S., & Daud, S. (2013). An investigation of student engagement in a Malaysian Public University. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 142-151.
Torrisi–Steele, G., & Davis, G. (2000). "A website for my subject": The experiences of some academics’ engagement with educational designers in a team based approach to developing online learning materials. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 283–301. doi:10.14742/ajet.1841.
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, York
Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). “Assessing the Acceptance of a Blended Learning University Course”. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 224–235.
Usta, and Özdemir (2007) studied students’ opinions about blended learning environment and their findings proved that students have generally positive opinions about blended learning environment.
Vignare, K., Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Luby, R., Roldan, R.S., & Wood, S.(2005). “Blended Learning Review of Research: An Annotative Bibliography”. Retrieved from: http://www.uic.edu.
Voelkl, K. E. (1996). Measuring students' identification with school. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 760-770.
Wang, M. T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement and youth problem behavior during adolescence. Child Development, 85, 722e737.
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school. A sense of belonging and participation. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Yuen, A.H.K. (2010). “Blended learning in Higher Education: An Exploration of Teaching Approaches”. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 أزهار محمد مجيد السباب
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licensing:
For all articles published in Al-Adab journal, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work.
Reproducing Published Material from other Publishers: It is absolutely essential that authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables or any extract of a text) which does not fall into the public domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested by the authors from the copyrightholder (usually the Publisher, please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyrightholder).
Permission is required for: Your own works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
Substantial extracts from anyones' works or a series of works.
Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
Photographs for which you do not hold copyright.
Permission is not required for: Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please notice that in this case you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission.
Obtaining Permission
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Al-Adab Journal cannot publish material from other publications without permission.
The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.
How to Cite
