Post COVID-19 and the Potential of Blended Learning in Higher Institutions: Exploring Students and Lecturers Perspectives on Learning Outcomes in Blended Learning



Abstract Views
1774

Downloads
1188

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Aug 18, 2021
Published Nov 16, 2021
10.24018/ejedu.2021.2.6.162

Abstract viewed = 1774 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This study explored students and teachers of Higher Educational Institutions perspectives on the potential of Blended Learning post-Covid-19. Using Shea’s 2007 Four-Model of Blended Learning and the framework of Complex Adaptive Blended Learning (BL) Systems, this paper investigated the correlation between Blended Learning (BL) and students learning outcomes in constructivists learning. The findings provided convincing support that Online Blended Learning offers some potential for teaching in higher institutions more than the stand-alone traditional face-to-face classroom. This is especially the case when teaching intends to enhance students reciprocal learning, students’ inquiry-based learning, learners posing questions and seeking answers on their own, as well as promoting cooperative/collaborative learning among students. Even though, the findings did not entirely dismiss the traditional face-to-face teaching, nevertheless, the results strongly suggest that blending face-to-face teaching with online teaching offers tremendous potential for inquiry-based and constructivist learning more than the traditional classroom face-to-face teaching alone. Additionally, BL creates both cohesive and effective learning environment overcoming geographical and physical barriers of traditional classroom teaching to promote self-paced critical learning among students, especially in institutions of higher learning.

Keywords: Blended learning, constructivists, inquiry-based learning outcomes

References

  1. Akkoyunlu, B., Soylu, M. Y. (2008). A study of student’s perceptions in a blended learning environment based on different learning styles Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 183-193. 2008.
     Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. (2008). The Theory and practice of Online Learning. 2nd ed. Athabasca University Press.
     Google Scholar
  3. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature”. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.
     Google Scholar
  4. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system Theory foundations, Development. New York George Braziller.
     Google Scholar
  5. Branch, R. (1999). Instructional design: A parallel processor for navigating learning space. Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training. Dordrecht.
     Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, D., Brown, A., Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience and school. committee on developments in the science of learning, commission on behavioral and social sciences and education, national research council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
     Google Scholar
  7. Brown, C. (2008). The use of complex adaptive systems as a generative metaphor in an action research study of an organization. Qualitative Report, 13(3), 416-431 2008.
     Google Scholar
  8. Chandra, V., Fisher, D.L (2009). Students’ perceptions of a blended web-based learning environment. Learning Environment Research, 12, 31-44.
     Google Scholar
  9. Chen, C. C., Jones, K. T. (2007). Blended learning vs. traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an mba accounting course The Journal of Educators Online, 4, (1). 1-15.
     Google Scholar
  10. Chickering, A. W., Gamson, A. F. (1987) Seven principles for good practice in Undergraduate Education. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation, Inc. Wingspread
     Google Scholar
  11. Cilliers, P. (2010). The value of complexity. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education. 7(1), 39-42.
     Google Scholar
  12. Cleveland, J. (1994). Complexity theory: Basic concepts and application to systems thinking. Innovation Network for Communities. 27.
     Google Scholar
  13. Crippen, K. J., Archambault, L. M., Kern, C. L. (2013) The nature of laboratory learning experiences in secondary science online Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1029-1050.
     Google Scholar
  14. Doolittle, P. E., Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education. 31(1), 72-104.
     Google Scholar
  15. Fellenz, R., Conti, G. (1989). Learning and reality: Reflections on trends in adult learning. ERIC Clearing House on Adult Career and Education and Training Information Series (No. 336), 1989.
     Google Scholar
  16. Garrison, D. R., Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text- based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education Internet and Higher Education. 11(2), 1–14.
     Google Scholar
  17. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education”. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4–14.
     Google Scholar
  18. Guanglu, Z. (2013). On the recursion between teaching and learning. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education. 9(1), 90-97.
     Google Scholar
  19. Guzera B., Caner, H. (2014). The past, present and future of blended leanring: An in-depth analysis of literature 5th World Conference on Educational Sciences Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 116 4596 – 46032.
     Google Scholar
  20. Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley 1995.
     Google Scholar
  21. Hong, Z. (2003). Constructivism in online learning: A literature review graduate research Papers 2. 853https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/853
     Google Scholar
  22. Jaber L., Dini Z., Hammer V., Danahy, E. (2018) Targeting disciplinary practices in an online learning environment Science Education. 102 (4), 668–692.
     Google Scholar
  23. Jang, S. J. (2009). Exploration of secondary students’ creativity by integrating web-based technology into an innovative science curriculum. Computers & Education. 52(1), 247-255.
     Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Smith, K. A. (1991) Active learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
     Google Scholar
  25. Jones, N. (2006). E-College Wales, A case study of blended learning. Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, Local designs. Pfeiffer Publishing, San Francisco, CA.
     Google Scholar
  26. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and Selection in evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
     Google Scholar
  27. Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. London, UK: Viking
     Google Scholar
  28. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of Adult Education: From pedagogy to andragogy 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Cambridge.
     Google Scholar
  29. Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in Action: Applying Modern Principles of Adult Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
     Google Scholar
  30. Knowles, M. Holton, E. & Swanson, R. (1998). The Adult Learner. Houston, TX: Gulf.
     Google Scholar
  31. Leary, D. E. (1990). Psyche’s muse: The role of metaphor in the history of psychology. Metaphors in the history of Psychology. 1-78.
     Google Scholar
  32. Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York, NY: Collier.
     Google Scholar
  33. Lim, C. P. (2002). A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools: A proposal. British Journal of Educational Technology. 33(4), 415-426.
     Google Scholar
  34. McCombs, B., Vakili, D. (2005) A learner-centered framework for e-learning Teachers College Record. 107(8), 1582–1600.
     Google Scholar
  35. Means, B., Yukie, T., Murphy R., Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the Empirical Literature. Teachers College Record. 115(3), 1-47.
     Google Scholar
  36. Merriam, S., Caffarella, R. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
     Google Scholar
  37. Moor, N., Gilmartin, M. (2010) Teaching for better learning: A blended learning pilot project with first-year geography undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 34(3), 327–344.
     Google Scholar
  38. Moore, M. G., Kearsley, G. (2010) Distance education: A systems view of Online Learning 3rd ed Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
     Google Scholar
  39. National Research Council. (2006) America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. National Academies Press.
     Google Scholar
  40. Ni, X., Branch, R. M. (2008). Complexity theory. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
     Google Scholar
  41. Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
     Google Scholar
  42. Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W. (2003). Faculty development, student satisfaction, and reported learning in The SUNY Learning Network. Learner centered theory and practice in distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     Google Scholar
  43. Shea, P. (2007) Towards a conceptual framework for learning in blended environments. Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, 19–35. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
     Google Scholar
  44. Singh, H. (2010). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology. 43(6), 51–54.
     Google Scholar
  45. So, H-J., Brush, T. A. (2008). Students’ perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education. 51(1), 318-336.
     Google Scholar
  46. Waddington, C. (1977) Tools for thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
     Google Scholar
  47. Waldrop, M. M. (1992) Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York NY: Simon & Schuster.
     Google Scholar
  48. Wang, Y., Han, X., Yang, J. (2015) Revisiting the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework. Educational Technology & Society. 18(2), 380-393.
     Google Scholar
  49. Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  50. Wenger, E. (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  51. You, Y. (1993) What we can learn from chaos theory? An alternative approach to instructional systems design. Educational Technology Research Development. 41(3), 17–32.
     Google Scholar
  52. Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education” Teachers College Record. 107(8), 1836–1884.
     Google Scholar