You are here:

Empowering Learners through Blended Learning

, York University, Canada

International Journal on E-Learning Volume 17, Number 1, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

Blended learning appears to facilitate learner empowerment more readily than either face-to-face or fully online courses. This contention is supported by a review of literature on the affordances of blended learning that support Thomas and Velthouse’s (1990) four conditions of empowerment: choice, meaningfulness, competence, and impact. Blended learning offers students choice and flexibility about when and where they can participate in the online portion of their course. The approach also appears to be consistent with their preferred method of learning as satisfaction tends to be higher than in fully online or face-to-face courses. Self-efficacy is typically stronger in blended courses compared to the other two instructional modes. Lastly, students in blended courses tend to perform better than their peers in fully online or face-to-face courses, hence have a greater sense of succeeding. Recommendations on blended course design to enhance learner empowerment are presented.

Citation

Owston, R. (2018). Empowering Learners through Blended Learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 17(1), 65-83. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 13, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from https://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/survey/blended06 Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
  2. Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R.F., Tamim, R.M., & Abrami, P.C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3Bonk, C.J., & Zhang, K. (2008). Empowering online learning: 100+ activities for reading, reflecting, displaying, and doing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Carnevale, A., Smith, N., Melton, M., & Price, E. (2015). Learning while earning: The new normal. Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University. Retrieved March 19, 2017 from http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/396609
  4. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 7, 3-7.
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  6. Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.
  7. Forte, J.A., & Root, V. (2011) To ITV or Not to ITV: A comparison of hybrid and web-enhanced approaches to teaching a macro-course in human behavior in the social environment. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21(1), 82-96. ., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45 (3), 181199.
  8. Garrison, D.R. (2011). E–learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer.
  9. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
  10. Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet& Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.iheduc.2004.02.001Garrison,D.R., & Vaughan, N.D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  11. Graham, C.R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C.J. Bonk and C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco,
  12. Houser, M.L., & Frymier, A.B. (2009). The role of student characteristics and teacher behaviors in students’ learner empowerment. Communication Education, 58(1), 35-53. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520802237383Hur,M.H.(2006).Empowermentin terms of theoretical perspectives: Exploring a typology of the process and components across disciplines. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(5), 523–540.
  13. James, R., Krause, K., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne, Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Retrieved March 18, 2017 from https://www.griffith.edu.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0013/52303/FYE_in_Australian_Universities.pdf
  14. 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.
  15. Lim, D.H., Morris, M.L., & Kupritz, V.W. (2006). Online vs. Blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27-42.
  16. Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2), 1-16. Http://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v5i2.189
  17. Madriz, F.V., & Nocente, N. (2016). Student engagement and satisfaction between different undergraduate blended learning courses. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning inCorporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2016 (pp. 1443-1448). Chesapeake,
  18. Michinov, E., & Michinov, N. (2007). Identifying a transition period at the midpoint of an online collaborative activity: A study among adult learners. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1355-1371.
  19. Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? Internet& Higher Education, 18, 15-23.
  20. National Survey of Student Engagement (2016). Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education– annual results 2016. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Research. Retrieved March 20, 2016 from http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/annual_results.cfm
  21. Owston, R.D., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38–46. ., & Tice, P. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006 – 07. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 19, 2017 from http://nces.ed.gov/
  22. Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  23. Thai, N.T.T., De Wever, B., Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers& Education, 107, 113-126. , K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681. Http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1990.4310926
  24. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11, 1-15. Retrieved March 19, 2017 from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/evidencenet/Student_engagement_literature_re DASHDASH
  25. Vo, M.H., Zhu, C., & Diep, A.N. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17-28.
  26. Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 581-599.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Content Analyses of Asynchronous Discussions in Online and Blended Course Sections: Completing Phase 2 of Our Study

    Gayle V. Davidson-Shivers, Angela Doucet Rand & Suriya "Em" Thongsawat, University of South Alabama, United States

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2018 (Jun 25, 2018) pp. 1846–1855

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.