Blended Learning pedagogical practices for improving students learning autonomy and academic results in learning

Goh, Swee Choo

QR Code Link :
Type :	article
Subject :	L Education (General)
Main Author :	Goh, Swee Choo
Additional Authors :	Wong, Kung-Teck Mohd Sahandri Ghani Hamzah Norazilawati Abdullah Siti Khatijah
Title :	Blended Learning pedagogical practices for improving students learning autonomy and academic results in learning

Place of Production :	Tanjong Malim
Publisher :	Fakulti Pembangunan Manusia
Year of Publication :	2019
Corporate Name :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

This study investigated whether blended learning was more effective in inculcating learner autonomy and improving academic results among students when compared to conventional learning practices. The study used a quasi-experimental design. The participants of the study consisted of 78 lower secondary students. The study carried out two different teaching methods; a blended learning classroom for the treatment group, meanwhile a conventional learning classroom for the control group. There were 40 pupils in the treatment group and 38 pupils in the control group. Post-test analysis was carried out to understand the effectiveness of blended learning towards students’ academic achievement. A set of questionnaire was developed to identify learner autonomy after the treatment. The results indicated that there was a significant increase in academic achievement based on the pre and post-test analyses. The study also found that blended learning pedagogical practices could improve students’ learning autonomy in learning

References

1. Almasaeid, T. F. (2014). The effect of using blended learning strategy on achievement and 9th grade students. European Scientific Journal, 10(31), 133–145.

2. Barker, J. (2015). Benefits of hybrid classes in community colleges. Contemporary Issues In Education Research, 8(3), 143–146.

3. Barrio-garcía, S., Arquero, J. L., & Romero-frías, E. (2015). Personal learning environments acceptance model: The role of need for cognition , e-learning satisfaction and students ’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 129–141.

4. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. WW Norton & Company.

5. Cohen, L., Lawrence, M., & Keith, M. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.

6. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th. ed.). Boston: Pearson.

7. Hu, H., & Du, Z. (2013). Web-based Inquiry of Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning as an English Major in Higher Vocational College. In Advanced Technology in Teaching, 163, 45-48.

8. Kruk M., Pawlak M. (2014) The Use of Internet Resources in Developing Autonomy in Learning English Pronunciation: A Qualitative Study. In: Pawlak M., Bielak J., Mystkowska-Wiertelak A. (eds) Classroom-oriented Research. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Heidelberg

9. Mohd Azli Yeop, Wong, K.T, Noraini Mohamed Noh. (2016). Blended Learning: Literature review on the acceptance factors of the teachers based on acceptance models. Journal Of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 6(1), 67-85.

10. Mohd Azli Yeop, Wong, K.T, Noraini Mohamed Noh. (2017). The construct of factors acceptance and use of blended learning for teachers in Malaysia. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2017, 14(9), 3-13.

11. Mohd Azli Yeop, Wong, K.T, Pauline, S.C.G. (2016). Blended learning: Pedagogy, learning styles, and assessment activities in the classroom. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences. 3(11), 365-369.

12. Nasser, R., Cherif, M., & Romanowski, M. (2011). Factors that impact student usage of the learning management system in Qatari schools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 39-62.

13. Noraini Mohamed Noh, Wong, K.T, Mohd Azli Yeop, Norazilawati Abdullah. (2016) Blended Learning: Its implementation and promote continuing e-learning environment among student-teachers. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences. 3(11), 11-15.

14. Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved August 14, 2017, from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/ view/1455/2602

15. Sekaran, U. (2016). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons.

16. Vaughan, N. (2014). Student engagement and blended learning: making the assessment connection. Education Sciences, 4(4), 247–264.

17. Volman, M., & Van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 613-634.

18. Wai, C. C., & Seng, E. L. K. (2014). Exploring the effectiveness and efficiency of blended learning tools in a school of business. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123(2002), 470–476.

19. 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.

20. Wong, K.T., Goh, P.S.C., ., & Siti Khatijah (2017). Exploring the affordances and obstacles of blended e-learning pedagogical practices: perspective of Malaysian teachers. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 5(14), 49-57.

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to previous page