Thematic Content Analysis of Blended Learning Studies in the Field of Mathematics Education

Year 2022, Volume: 10 Issue: 20, 572 - 589, 21.12.2022

Seda Aktı Aslan

https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1135113

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The goal of this research is to examine the methodological trends and outputs of blended learning studies focusing on mathematics education. Accordingly, thematic content analysis was used in the current research. Studies were screened through electronic databases which include Web of Science, SCOPUS, ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), ULAKBIM (the Turkish Academic Network and Information Centre), DergiPark (JournalPark) and CoHE Thesis Center (the Council of Higher Education in Turkey). After the keywords and filters specified in the databases were searched, a total of 1299 research and 72 thesis studies were determined. Among these studies, the PRISMA method was used to select the studies to be included in the current research. At the end of all reviews, 11 articles and 4 theses were included in the current research. The results of studies emphasized that blended learning affected students' views, problem solving skills, self-regulation skills and more than half of the independent variables positively.

Keywords

Blended learning, mathematics education, thematic content analysis

References

• Akkuş, M. (2001). Diferansiyel denklemler öğretimi için harmanlanmış öğrenme yöntemi (Doktora Tezi) [Blended learning method for teaching differential equations (PhD Thesis)]. Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya.
• Arrosagaray, M., González-Peiteado, M., Pino-Juste, M., & Rodríguez-López, B. (2019). A comparative study of Spanish adult students’ attitudes to ICT in classroom, blended and distance language learning modes. Computers & Education, 134, 31-40.
• Batdı, V. (2014). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarının öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etkisi: Bir meta-analiz çalışması [The effect of blended learning environments on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis study]. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(1), 287-302.
• Berry, S. (2019). Professional development for online faculty: instructors’ perspectives on cultivating technical, pedagogical and content knowledge in a distance program. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(1), 121-136.
• Cakir, O., Teker, E., & Can Aybek, E. (2015). The effect of adaptive learning environment in teaching the number concept to students with intellectual disabilities. Croatian Journal of Education, 17(Sp. Ed. 4), 199-221.
• Cirak-Kurt, S., Yildirim, I., & Cucuk, E. (2018). The effects of blended learning on student achievement: A meta-analysis study. Hacettepe Unıversıty Journal of Educatıon, 33(3), 776-802.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
• Çalık, M., & Sözbilir, M. (2014). İçerik analizinin parametreleri [Parameters of content analysis]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174).
• Demir, Ü. (2020). An examination of the impact of game-based geometric shapes education software usage on the education of students with intellectual disabilities. ECNU Review of Education, 2096531120940721.
• 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.
• Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. E-learning, 1(4), 1-4.
• Dürnel, A. (2018). 5. sınıf matematik dersinin harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamında işlenmesi: Bir durum çalışması (Yüksek lisans Tezi) [Processing of 5th grade mathematics course in blended learning environment: A case study (Master's Thesis)]. Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Finn, A., & Bucceri, M. (2004). A case study approach to blended learning. Los Angeles: Centra Software.
• Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), 95-105.
• Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.
• Göktaş, Y., Küçük, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacık, Ö., Yıldırım, G., & Reisoğlu, İ. (2012). Türkiye’de eğitim teknolojileri araştırmalarındaki eğilimler: 2000-2009 dönemi makalelerinin içerik analizi [Educational technology research trends in Turkey: A content analysis of the 2000-2009 decade]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 177-199.
• Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, First Edition (pp. 253-259). IGI Global.
• Han, F., & Ellis, R. A. (2019). Identifying consistent patterns of quality learning discussions in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 40, 12-19.
• Hebebci, M. T., & Ertuğrul, U. (2015). Türkiye’de harmanlanmış öğrenme eğilimleri: Bir literatür çalışması [Blended learning trends in Turkey: A literature review study]. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (19), 195-219.
• Hunma, A. (2018). Students make history every day just by sitting on these steps: Performative spaces and re-genring in the South. Education as Change, 22(1), 1-25.
• Johnson, R. D., Hornik, S., & Salas, E. (2008). An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(5), 356-369.
• Jonker, H., März, V., & Voogt, J. (2018). Teacher educators' professional identity under construction: The transition from teaching face-to-face to a blended curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71,120-133
• Kim, J. Y. (2012). A study on learners’ perceptional typology and relationships among the learner’s types, characteristics, and academic achievement in a blended e-education environment. Computers & Education, 59(2), 304–315.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Mestan, K. (2019). Create a fine blend: An examination of institutional transition to blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 70-84.
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group*. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264-269.
• Nyika, R., & Modise, M.A. (2022). Experiences and challenges of adapting to online learning during covid-19 induced lockdown: The case of gweru urban tertiary students in Zimbabwe. International e-Journal of Educational Studies, 6 (12), 272-281. https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.1164927
• Öner, G., Yıldırım, İ., & Bars, M. (2014). The effect of blended learning on students' achievement for the topic of quadratic equation in mathematics education. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 2(4), 152-165.
• Poon, J. (2012). Use of blended learning to enhance the student learning experience and engagement in property education. Property Management, 30(2), 129-156.
• Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701.
• Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students' level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 52–59.
• Sharts-Hopko, N. C. (2002). Assessing rigor in qualitative research. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 4(13), 84-86.
• Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
• Smith, K., & Hill, J. (2019). Defining the nature of blended learning through its depiction in current research. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(2), 383-397.
• Smyth, S., Houghton, C., Cooney, A., & Casey, D. (2012). Students' experiences of blended learning across a range of postgraduate programmes. Nurse Education Today, 32(4), 464-468.
• Soydaş-Çakır, H. & Akyazı, E. (2021). Interaction increasing factors: Research on e-learning content design. International e-Journal of Educational Studies (IEJES), 5 (9), 25-40. https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.786457
• Şimşek, K., & Jale, İ. (2016). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarında bilgisayar cebiri sistemlerinin akademik başarıya etkisi [Effects of computer algebra systems on academic success in blended learning environments]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 13(2), 651-679.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (6th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
• Yıldırım, İ., & Vural, Ö. F. (2016). Matematik öğretimine entegre edilmiş harmanlanmış öğrenme süreci hakkındaki öğrenci görüşleri [Students’ views about blended learning process integrated to mathematics education]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 1-15.
• Yorganci, S. (2020). Implementing flipped learning approach based on ‘first principles of instruction’in mathematics courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(5), 763-779.