You are here:

Using Blended Learning Design to Enhance Learning Experience in Teacher Education
ARTICLE

, University of Macau, Macau ; , Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

International Journal on E-Learning Volume 15, Number 1, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This study examined students’ views on a blended learning environment designed for 29 in-service teachers in Singapore enrolled in an educational research method course. Their self-report data highlighted that students’ prior knowledge and the amount and difficulty of content covered in the course affected the effectiveness of blended learning environment. Among the five course components in this blended course, face-to-face tutorials and the group project were perceived to be more useful than the online discussion forum, individual reflection blogs, and self-paced study. Interestingly, the higher their achievement level in this course, the more positive their views were on the blended learning environment. The interactions between student-student and student-tutor were essential elements in this blended learning environment; particularly the presence of tutors (online and offline) was expected as it provided more cognitive and metacognitive scaffolds. Explanations about findings and implications for instructional design are discussed in the conclusion.

Citation

Zhou, M. & Chua, B.L. (2016). Using Blended Learning Design to Enhance Learning Experience in Teacher Education. International Journal on E-Learning, 15(1), 121-140. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 26, 2021 from .

© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, Y.M. (2006). A study on students’ views on blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(3).
  2. Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J.M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 217–235.
  3. Arbaugh, J.B., Hwang, A., & Pollack, B.L. (2011). A review of research methods in online and blended business education: 2000-2009. In S.B. Eom & Arbaugh, J.B (Eds.) Student satisfaction and learning outcomes in e-learning: An introduction to empirical research (pp. 37-56). New York: Information Science Reference.
  4. Bennett, G., & Green, F.P. (2001). Student learning in the online environment: No significant difference? Quest, 53, 1–13.
  5. Black, G. (2002). A comparison of traditional, online, and hybrid methods of course delivery. Journal of Business Administration Online, 1(1).
  6. Bliuc, A.-M., Goodyear P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 231-244.
  7. Chen, Y.J., & Chen, P.C. (2007). Effects of online interaction on adult students’ satisfaction and learning. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 3(2), 78-89.
  8. Colton, A.B., & Sparks-Langer, G.M. (1993). A conceptual framework to guide the development of teacher reflection and decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, Using Blended Learning Design to Enhance Learning Experience 139
  9. Dabbagh, N.H. (2000). The challenges of interfacing between face-to-face and online instruction. TechTrends, 44, 37–42.
  10. Derntl, M., & Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 111-130.
  11. Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers& Education, 54, 350–359.
  12. Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). Simon& Schuster Macmillan:
  13. Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
  14. Gillespie, F. (1998). Instructional design for the new technologies. In K.H. Gillespie (Ed.), The impact of technology on faculty development, life, and-work (Vol. 76: New directions for teaching and learning) (pp. 39– 52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  15. Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between online and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 53-64.
  16. Harding, A., Kaczynski, D., & Wood, L. (2005). Evaluation of blended learning: analysis of qualitative data. In Proceedings of UniServe Science Blended Learning Symposium (pp. 56-62). Sydney, Australia.
  17. Hiltz, S.R., & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning networks effective? Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 56–59.
  18. Hogg, R.V. (1991). Statistical education: Improvements are badly needed. The American Statistician, 45(4), 342-343.
  19. Holly, M. (1989). Reflective writing and the spirit of enquiry. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19, 71-80.
  20. Kletzien, S.B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 67-86.
  21. Lin, B., & Hsieh, C. (2001). Web-based teaching and learner control: A research view. Computers and Education, 37, 377–386.
  22. López-Pérez, M.V., Pérez-López, M.C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers& Education, 56, 818–826.
  23. McCrindle, A.R., & Christensen, C.A. (1995). The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction, 5, 167-185.
  24. McMahon, M., & Oliver, R. (2001, June). Promoting self-regulated learning in an on-line environment. In Proceedings of the ED-Media World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia& Telecommunications, Tampere, Finland.
  25. Miers, J. (2004). BELTS or Braces? Technology School of the Future.
  26. Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students' perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38(2), 185-199.
  27. Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: NCRIPTAL, The University of Michigan.
  28. Pressley, M., & McCormick, C.B. (1995). Cognition, teaching and assessment. New York: HarperCollins.
  29. Rogers, C.R., & Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/MacMillan.
  30. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1.
  31. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
  32. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating-the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
  33. Shapiro, A. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159189.
  34. Sharpe, T., & Hawkins, A. (1998). Technology and the information age: A cautionary tale for higher education. Quest, 50, 19–32.
  35. So, H., & Brush, T. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers& Education, 51(1), 318-336.
  36. Summers, J.J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T.A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face Statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 233-250.
  37. Van Etten, S., Pressley, M., McInerney, D.M., & Liem, A.D. (2008). College seniors' theory of their academic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 812-828.
  38. Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In Proceedings of Euro CSCL 2001 (pp. 625-632). Maastricht: McLuhan institute, University of Maastricht.
  39. Wayment, H.A. (2004). It could have been me: Vicarious victims and disaster-focused distress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 515-528.
  40. Woltering, V., Herrler, A., Spitzer, K., & Spreckelsen, C. (2009). Blended learning positively affects students’ satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: Results of a mixed-method evaluation. Advances in Health Science Education, 14, 725–738.
  41. Yildirim, Z. (2006). Competency, readiness, and online learning. Academic Exchange

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