You are here:

An Investigation on Individual Students’ Perceptions of Interest Utilizing a Blended Learning Approach
Article

, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong ; , City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

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

Full Text

Abstract

Research has established that individual student interest has a positive effect on learning and academic achievement. However, little is known about the impact of a blended learning ap-proach on individual student interest and whether combinations of online and face-to-face learning activities significantly enhance student interest. This paper assesses the effect of blended learning on perceived individual student interest, utilizing a blend of online and face-to-face discussions. The study employed a quasi-experimental design consisting of two differ-ent treatment groups, online discussions versus face-to-face discussions. Data were analyzed using the t-test technique. Results from the study suggest that there was no statistical differ-ence in subjects’ perception of interest in both the online and face-to-face discussions. How-ever, from observation, subjects in the online discussions were eager to engage in textual dia-logue and therefore, participated more in the discussions compared to the face-to-face discussions.

Citation

Shroff, R. & Vogel, D. (2010). An Investigation on Individual Students’ Perceptions of Interest Utilizing a Blended Learning Approach. International Journal on E-Learning, 9(2), 279-294. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 23, 2023 from .

© 2010 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
  2. Bleed, R. (2001). A hybrid campus for a new millennium. Educause Review, 36(1), 16-24.
  3. Bonk, C., & Graham, C. (2005). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
  4. Bosworth, K., & Hamilton, S.J. (1994). Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and effective techniques. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
  5. Boyle, T. (2005). A dynamic, systematic method for developing blended learning. Education, Communication and Information, Special Issue on Blended Learning, 5(3), 221-232.
  6. Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Pickard, P. (2003). Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 165-178.
  7. Cochran, W.G. (1963). Sampling techniques (2ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
  8. Collins, A. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In Idol, L. And B.F. Jones (eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  9. Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
  10. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement. In A.K. Boggiano, & Pittman, T.S. (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective. (pp. 77-114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Dede, C. (1996). Emerging technologies in distance education for business. Journal of Education for Business, 71(4), 197-204.
  12. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin C.
  13. Dziuban, C.D., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004). Blended learning. Educause Center for Applied Individual Students’ Perceptions of Interest Utilizing a Blended Learning Approach 293
  14. Edelson, D.C., Pea, R.D., & Gomez, L. (1995). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  15. Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
  16. Harp, S.F., & Mayer, R.E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92-102.
  17. Harter, S., & Connell, J.P. (1984). A model of children's achievement and related selfperceptions of competence, control and motivation orientation. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 3, 219-250.
  18. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, and A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  19. Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (1998). Situational interest and learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seeon-Conference on interest and gender, Kiel, Germany.
  20. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research.
  21. Hiltz, S.R. (1990). Collaborative learning: The virtual classroom approach. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 17(10), 59-65.
  22. Iran-Nejad, A. (1987). Cognitive and affective causes of interest and liking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 120-130.
  23. Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Publishing.
  24. Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Hg.), The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  25. Leidner, D.E., & Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 265-291.
  26. Malone, T. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 3, 333-369.
  27. Malone, T., & Lepper, M. (1987). Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In Aptitude, Learning and Instruction, Volume 3, Cognitive and Affective Process Analyses. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  28. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424-436.
  29. Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.
  30. Murphy, P.K., & Alexander, P.A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53.
  31. Novak, G., Gavrin, A., Christian, W., & Patterson, E. (1999). Just-in-time teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. New York: Prentice Hall Series in Educational Innovation.
  32. Ocker, R., & Yaverbaum, G.J. (2002). Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conferencing settings. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 427-448.
  33. Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C. (2003). Blended learning environments definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 43(3), 227-233.
  34. Parker, L., & Lepper, M. (1992). The effects of fantasy contexts on children's learning and motivations; making learning more fun. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 625-633.
  35. Ranwez, S., Leidig, T., & Crampes, M. (2000). Formalization to improve lifelong learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(3/4), 389-409.
  36. Reeve, J., & Deci, E. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 57-71.
  37. Renninger, K.A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J.M. Harakiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. New York: Academic Press.
  38. Ryan, R.M. (1994). The Nature of the self in autonomy and relatedness. In J. Strauss& G.R. Goethals (Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 208-238). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  39. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, D.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
  40. Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257-279.
  41. Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional. London: Kogan Page.
  42. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K.M., & Deci, E.L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260.
  43. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on Blended Learning in Higher Education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94.
  44. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.
  45. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  46. Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections