INSTITUTIONAL ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF BLENDED LEARNING: DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT PERCEPTIONS

Year 2023, Volume: 24 Issue: 1, 37 - 53, 01.01.2023

Ramiz Alı

https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.973869

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Blended learning (BL) has been a popular mode of course delivery in higher education, aiming to provide students with better learning experiences by integrating face-to-face (f2f) instructions and affordances of digital technology. However, lack of knowledge about how students perceive BL cross-disciplines can make it difficult for teachers to provide consistent learning experiences to students, yielding inequity in learning experiences. This study aims to explore how university students perceive BL, and to compare differences in perceptions across subjects. Participants were 407 university students from eight subject disciplines. Data were collected through a questionnaire and were analysed using SPSS. A one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the differences between the groups. Results showed, students were generally happy about use of BL, despite facing multiple barriers in using the learning approach. Results further revealed, students studying tourism/hospitality, and business subjects were more negative about BL, while students in science and engineering, and Islamic studies faculties were more receptive to BL compared to the rest of the university. Implications for adoption and implantation of BL, and teacher support are discussed.

Keywords

blended learning, adoption of technology, institutional adoption, higher education, TAM

Supporting Institution

No funding

References

• Adedokun, O. A., Henke, J. N., Parker, L. C., & Burgess, W. D. (2017). Student Perceptions of a 21st Century Learning Space. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1), 1-13.
• Al Zumor, A. W. Q., Al Refaai, I. K., Eddin, E. A. B., & Al-Rahman, F. H. A. (2013). EFL Students' Perceptions of a Blended Learning Environment: Advantages, Limitations and Suggestions for Improvement. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 95-110.
• Amanda, D., Emily, G., Kate, T., & Kathryn, J. (2019). Students’ perceptions of the educational value of Twitter: a mixed-methods investigation. Research in Learning Technology, 27(0), 1-15.
• Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. L. E., Abdullah, A., & Ming, G. L. (2020). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: A theoretical and systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-48.
• Armstrong, E. J. (2019). Maximising motivators for technology-enhanced learning for further education teachers: moving beyond the early adopters in a time of austerity. Research in Learning Technology, 27(0), 1-23. doi:10.25304/rlt.v27.2032
• Boelens, R., Wever, B. D., & Voet, M. (2017). Four Key Challenges to the Design of Blended Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. . Educational Research Review. , 22, 1-18.
• Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17.
• Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors' adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. Internet & Higher Education, 31, 1-10.
• Bruggeman, B., Tondeur, J., Struyven, K., Pynoo, B., Garone, A., & Vanslambrouck, S. (2021). Experts speaking: Crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 48.
• Chang, Z. (2015). Organisational culture and technology-enhanced innovation in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 65-79. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2013.822414.
• Cidrala, W. A., Oliveirab, T., Felicea, M. D., & Apariciob, M. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers & Education, 122, 273-290.
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User Acceptance of InformationTechnology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
• Diep, A. N., Zhu, C., Struyven, K., & Blieck, Y. (2017). Who or what contributes to student satisfaction in different blended learning modalities? British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 473-489. doi:10.1111/bjet.12431
• Dumpit, D. Z., & Fernandez, C. J. (2017). Analysis of the use of social media in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) using the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1).
• Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(3), 1-16.
• Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M., & Conole, G. (2012). Student attitudes towards and use of ICT in course study, work and social activity: A technology acceptance model approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 71-84. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01142.x
• Emerson, R. W. (2018). MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance): An Expanded Form of the ANOVA (Analysis of Variance). Journal of visual impairment & blindness, 112(1), 125-126. doi:10.1177/0145482X1811200113
• Gao, B. W., Jiang, J., & Tang, Y. (2020). The effect of blended learning platform and engagement on students’ satisfaction—— the case from the tourism management teaching. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 27.
• Hsu, L. (2016). Diffusion of Innovation and Use of Technology in Hospitality Education: An Empirical Assessment with Multilevel Analyses of Learning Effectiveness. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 135-145.
• Huang, F., & Teo, T. (2021). Examining the role of technology‐related policy and constructivist teaching belief on English teachers’ technology acceptance: A study in Chinese universities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 441-460. doi:10.1111/bjet.13027
• Ibrahim, M. M., & Nat, M. (2019). Blended learning motivation model for instructors in higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-21.
• Jeffrey, L. M., & Higgins, A. (2014). Blended Learning: How Teachers Balance the Blend of Online and Classroom Components. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 121-140.
• Jesus, A., Gomes, M. J., & Cruz, A. (2017). Blended versus face-to-face: comparing student performance in a therapeutics class. IET Software, 11(3), 135-140.
• Jowsey, T., Foster, G., Cooper-Ioelu, P., & Jacobs, S. (2020). Blended learning via distance in pre-registration nursing education: A scoping review. Nurse Education in Practice, 44. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102775
• Lai, M., Lam, K. M., & Lim, C. P. (2016). Design principles for the blend in blended learning: a collective case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(6), 716-729.
• Lancelot Miltgen, C., Popovicˇ, A., & Oliveira, T. (2013). Determinants of end-user acceptance of biometrics: Integrating the “Big 3” of technology acceptance with privacy context. Decision Support Systems, 56, 103-114. doi:DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.010.
• Lightner, C. A., & Lightner-Laws, C. A. (2016). A blended model: simultaneously teaching a quantitative course traditionally, online, and remotely. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 224-238.
• Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in higher education, 31(3), 285-298. doi:10.1080/03075070600680539
• Martín-García, A. V., Martínez-Abad, F., & Reyes-González, D. (2019). TAM and stages of adoption of blended learning in higher education by application of data mining techniques. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2484-2500. doi:10.1111/bjet.12831
• Martínez-Caro, E., & Campuzano-Bolarín, F. (2011). Factors affecting students' satisfaction in engineering disciplines: traditional vs. blended approaches. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(5), 473-483. doi:10.1080/03043797.2011.619647
• Mestan, K. (2019). Create a fine blend: An examination of institutional transition to blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 70-84.
• Míguez-Álvarez, C., Crespo, B., Arce, E., Cuevas, M., & Regueiro, A. (2020). Blending learning as an approach in teaching sustainability. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16. doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1734623
• Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty members. Computers & Education, 56, 689-699.
• Olelewe, C. J., & Agomuo, E. E. (2016). Effects of B-learning and F2F learning environments on students' achievement in QBASIC programming. Computers & Education, 103, 76-86.
• Osgerby, J. (2013). Students' Perceptions of the Introduction of a Blended Learning Environment: An Exploratory Case Study. Accounting education, 22(1), 85-99. doi:10.1080/09639284.2012.729341
• Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38-46.
• Pang, L., Penfold, P., & Wong, S. (2010). Chinese Learners' Perceptions of Blended Learning in a Hospitality and Tourism Management Program. Journal of hospitality & tourism education, 22(1), 15-22. doi:10.1080/10963758.2010.10696965
• Park, S. Y., Nam, M., & Cha, S. (2012). University students' behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592-605. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x
• Pereira, A. S., & Wahi, M. M. (2017). Course management system’s compatibility with teaching style influences willingness to complete training. Online Learning Journal, 21(1), 36-59.
• Pinto-Llorente, A. M., Sanchez-Gomez, M. C., García-Penalvo, F. J., & Casillas-Martín, S. (2017). Students’ perceptions and attitudes towards asynchronous technological tools in blended-learning training to improve grammatical competence in English as a second language. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 632-643.
• Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional Drivers and Barriers to Faculty Adoption of Blended Learning in Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748-762.
• Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R. G., & Sandberg, D. S. (2016). A qualitative analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 17-27.
• Posey, L., & Pintz, C. (2017). Transitioning a bachelor of science in nursing program to blended learning: Successes, challenges & outcomes. Nurse Education in Practice, 26, 126-133.
• Razmak, J., & Bélanger, C. (2018). Using the technology acceptance model to predict patient attitude toward personal health records in regional communities. Information Technology & People, 31(2), 306-326.
• Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Huang, F., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Teo, T. (2019). Exploring the unknown: The effect of resistance to change and attachment on mobile adoption among secondary pre-service teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2433-2449.
• Sánchez‐Prieto, J. C., Huang, F., Olmos‐Migueláñez, S., García‐Peñalvo, F. J., & Teo, T. (2019). Exploring the unknown : The effect of resistance to change and attachment on mobile adoption among secondary pre-service teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5).
• Singh, & Hardaker, G. (2017). Change levers for unifying top-down and bottom-up approaches to the adoption and diffusion of e-learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(6), 736-748.
• Sumak, B., Pusnik, M., Hericko, M., & Sorgo, A. (2017). Differences between prospective, existing, and former users of interactive whiteboards on external factors affecting their adoption, usage and abandonment. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 733-756.
• Taylor, J. A., & Newton, D. (2013). Beyond blended learning: A case study of institutional change at an Australian regional university. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 54-60.
• Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107, 113-126.
• Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2020). Face‐to‐face, blended, flipped, or online learning environment? Impact on learning performance and student cognitions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3), 397-411.
• Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Pynoo, B., Thomas, V., Lombaerts, K., & Tondeur, J. (2019). An in-depth analysis of adult students in blended environments: Do they regulate their learning in an ‘old school’ way? Computers & Education, 128, 75-87.
• Villani, D., Morganti, L., Carissoli, C., Gatti, E., Bonanomi, A., Cacciamani, S., . . . Riva, G. (2018). Students' acceptance of tablet PCs in Italian high schools: Profiles and differences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 533-544.
• Wang, Q., & Huang, C. (2018). Pedagogical, social and technical designs of a blended synchronous learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 451-462.
• Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers & Education, 88, 354-369.
• Wilson, D. A., Raish, V., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2017). Film Use to Promote Understanding in Change and Diffusion of Innovation. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 30(3), 277-293. doi:10.1007/s11213-016-9391-6
• Xu, D., Glick, D., Rodriguez, F., Cung, B., Li, Q., & Warschauer, M. (2020). Does blended instruction enhance English language learning in developing countries? Evidence from Mexico. British Journal of Educational Technology 51(1), 211-227.
• Xu, Y., Yau, J. C., & Reich, S. M. (2020). Press, swipe and read: Do interactive features facilitate engagement and learning with e‐Books ? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. doi:10.1111/jcal.12480
• Zhang, Y. G., & Dang, M. Y. (2020). Understanding essential factors in influencing technology-supported learnig: a model toward blended learning success. Journal of Information Technology Education, 19, 489-510. doi:10.28945/4597
• Zibin, A., & Altakhaineh, A. R. M. (2018). The effect of blended learning on the development of clause combining as an aspect of the acquisition of written discourse by Jordanian learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1-12.
• Zimba, Z. F., Khosa, P., & Pillay, R. (2021). Using blended learning in South African social work education to facilitate student engagement. Social work education, 40(2), 263-278. doi:10.1080/02615479.2020.1746261