Teacher Views on Blended Learning

Abstract

This study aims to contribute to the knowledge available in the literature through revealing teachers' views on blended learning. Considering that blended learning aims to integrate the positive aspects of different learning environments, it is important to determine the positive and negative situations in learning environments. In line with the purpose of the study, 20 teachers from different branches working in public schools were interviewed in the 2020-2021 academic year. Semi-structured interview questions were asked to the teachers. This research is a case study and it is in qualitative research design. Descriptive analysis approach was used to analyze the data obtained from the research. Teachers’ views about blended learning were analyzed in terms of the definition of blended learning, blended learning applications, positive and negative aspects of online and classroom applications for teachers, positive and negative aspects of online and classroom applications for students, changes of blended learning environments on the teacher's role. It was concluded that online applications address more than one sense organ and develop the ability to use technology. They also provide effective communication atmosphere which positively affect both teachers and students in-classroom practices. Insufficiency in technical infrastructure draw attention as common negativity for both teachers and students in online applications. Also, it was determined that the teachers do not have enough knowledge about blended learning. Teachers should be guided about this issue with in-service training.

Keywords

• Blended learning
• teacher views
• learning environments

References

1. Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2006). A study on students’ views on blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 43-56.
2. Aksoğan, M. (2011). Blended learning can be found in students’ academic achievements and effect permanently in learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). Fırat University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Elazig.
3. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade Level: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
4. Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages, and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29-42.
5. Balcı, E. (2017). Perceptions on blended learning: a study on student and instructor Experiences in an English preparatory program (Master’s thesis). Accessed from the National Thesis Center database of the Council of Higher Education. (Thesis No. 454676).
6. Batdı, V. (2014). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarının öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etkisi: Bir meta-analiz çalışması [The academic achievements of blended learning environments effect: A meta-analysis study]. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(1), 287-302.
7. Bodur, A. G. (2019). An evaluation of the blended learning program of Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University preparatory school based on students “and instructors” perspectives (Master’s thesis). Accessed from the National Thesis Center database of the Council of Higher Education. (Thesis No. 564680).
8. Çardak, C. S. (2012). Harmanlanmış öğrenme sürecinde öğrencilerin etkileşimlerinin ve öğrenme düzeylerinin incelenmesi [In the blended learning process, students' interactions, and examination of learning levels] (Doctoral thesis). Accessed from the National Thesis Center database of the Council of Higher Education. (Thesis No. 312608).

9. Ceylan, V. K. (2015). Impact of blended learning method on academic achievement (Master’s thesis). Accessed from the National Thesis Center database of the Council of Higher Education. (Thesis No. 394909).
10. Çırak, P. (2017). Bir harmanlanmış öğrenme deneyimi [A blended learning experience]. Elementary Education Online, 16(2).
11. Draffan, E. A., & Rainger, P. (2006). A model for the identification of challenges to blended learning. ALT-J, 14(1), 55-67.
12. Drucker, P. F. (1996). New facts. (B. Karanakçı, Cev.). Ankara: Is Bank Publications.
13. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.
14. Gates, B. (1999). Working at the speed of thought with the digital nervous system. (A.C. Akkoyunlu Çev.). Istanbul: Dogan Bookshop INC.
15. Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, John Wiley & Sons.
16. Gülbahar, Y. (2017). E-learning. Ankara: Pegem Publications.
17. Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2014). Research methods in social science. Ankara: Distinguished Publishing.
18. Hebebci, M. T., & Usta, E. (2015). Türkiye’de harmanlanmış öğrenme eğilimleri: Bir literatür çalışması [Blended learning trends in Turkey: A literature review study]. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(19), 195–219.
19. Karaotcu, I., & Baran, B. (2019). Made within the framework of blended learning in Turkey Studies. Full-Text Paper Book, 68-73.
20. Kırmızı, Ö., & Yapıcı, K. (2019). Turkish EFL teachers’ views on blended learning: A qualitative analysis. Journal of The Social and Humanities, 3(1), 31-41.
21. Mahiroğlu, A., & Usta, E. (2008). Blended learning and online learning environments academic achievement and effect on saturated. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Faculty of Education Journal, 9(2), 1-15.
22. Marvasti, A. B. (2004). Qualitative research in sociology. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
23. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 979-1000.
24. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub.
25. Ocak, M. A., Üstün, A. B., & Apaydın, S. M. F. (2010). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarında etkileşimsel ilişkinin akademik başarıya etkisi: Alanyazın incelemesi. In 4th International Computer and Instructional Technologies Symposium. Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi.
26. Oh, E. (2006). Current practices in blended instruction (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Tennessee Üniversitesi, Knoxville.
27. Patton, M. Q. (1987). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Ankara: Pegem A Publications.
28. Sarıtepeci, M., & Yıldız, H. (2014). The blended learning environments are an examination of the effect on participation and motivations against the course. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Faculty of Education Journal, 15(1), 207-223.
29. Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Centra software, 1, 1-11.
30. Tosun, E. A., & Özaydınlı, F. B. (2020). Teacher opinions on the applicability of the 2017 Secondary education English curriculum based on the blended learning approach. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(2), 686-713.
31. Uluyol, Ç., & Karadeniz, Ş. (2009). Example of a blended learning environment, student achievement, and his views. Centenary University Faculty of Education Journal, 6(1), 60-84.
32. Ünsal, H. (2007). Multiple levels of blended learning activity evaluation. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
33. Ünsal, H. (2010). A new learning approach: blended learning. National Education Magazine, (40)185, 130-137.
34. Üstün, A.B. (2011). Given in blended learning environments of BÖTE faculty members’ opinions on courses (Master’s thesis). Accessed from the National Thesis Center database of the Council of Higher Education. (Thesis No. 290750).
35. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social science]. Ankara: Distinguished Publishing.
36. Yılmaz, Ö. (2018). Fen öğretiminde harmanlanmış öğrenme: avantajlar ve öğrenci alışkanlıkları [Blended learning in science teaching: benefits and student habits]. Hitit University Institute of Social Sciences Journal, 11(3), 2111-2121.
37. Yolcu, H. H. (2015). Blended (mixed) learning and implementation principles. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 33, 255-260.