blended learning environments a review of the research literature

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 06 February 2017

Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes

• Mugenyi Justice Kintu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4500-1168 1 , 2 ,
• Chang Zhu 2 &
• Edmond Kagambe 1  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  14 , Article number:  7 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

771k Accesses

237 Citations

36 Altmetric

Metrics details

This paper investigates the effectiveness of a blended learning environment through analyzing the relationship between student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It is aimed at determining the significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness taking student characteristics/background and design features as independent variables and learning outcomes as dependent variables. A survey was administered to 238 respondents to gather data on student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. The final semester evaluation results were used as a measure for performance as an outcome. We applied the online self regulatory learning questionnaire for data on learner self regulation, the intrinsic motivation inventory for data on intrinsic motivation and other self-developed instruments for measuring the other constructs. Multiple regression analysis results showed that blended learning design features (technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support) and student characteristics (attitudes and self-regulation) predicted student satisfaction as an outcome. The results indicate that some of the student characteristics/backgrounds and design features are significant predictors for student learning outcomes in blended learning.

Introduction

The teaching and learning environment is embracing a number of innovations and some of these involve the use of technology through blended learning. This innovative pedagogical approach has been embraced rapidly though it goes through a process. The introduction of blended learning (combination of face-to-face and online teaching and learning) initiatives is part of these innovations but its uptake, especially in the developing world faces challenges for it to be an effective innovation in teaching and learning. Blended learning effectiveness has quite a number of underlying factors that pose challenges. One big challenge is about how users can successfully use the technology and ensuring participants’ commitment given the individual learner characteristics and encounters with technology (Hofmann, 2014 ). Hofmann adds that users getting into difficulties with technology may result into abandoning the learning and eventual failure of technological applications. In a report by Oxford Group ( 2013 ), some learners (16%) had negative attitudes to blended learning while 26% were concerned that learners would not complete study in blended learning. Learners are important partners in any learning process and therefore, their backgrounds and characteristics affect their ability to effectively carry on with learning and being in blended learning, the design tools to be used may impinge on the effectiveness in their learning.

This study tackles blended learning effectiveness which has been investigated in previous studies considering grades, course completion, retention and graduation rates but no studies regarding effectiveness in view of learner characteristics/background, design features and outcomes have been done in the Ugandan university context. No studies have also been done on how the characteristics of learners and design features are predictors of outcomes in the context of a planning evaluation research (Guskey, 2000 ) to establish the effectiveness of blended learning. Guskey ( 2000 ) noted that planning evaluation fits in well since it occurs before the implementation of any innovation as well as allowing planners to determine the needs, considering participant characteristics, analyzing contextual matters and gathering baseline information. This study is done in the context of a plan to undertake innovative pedagogy involving use of a learning management system (moodle) for the first time in teaching and learning in a Ugandan university. The learner characteristics/backgrounds being investigated for blended learning effectiveness include self-regulation, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, attitude to blended learning, gender and age. We investigate the blended learning design features of learner interactions, face-to-face support, learning management system tools and technology quality while the outcomes considered include satisfaction, performance, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction. Establishing the significant predictors of outcomes in blended learning will help to inform planners of such learning environments in order to put in place necessary groundwork preparations for designing blended learning as an innovative pedagogical approach.

Kenney and Newcombe ( 2011 ) did their comparison to establish effectiveness in view of grades and found that blended learning had higher average score than the non-blended learning environment. Garrison and Kanuka ( 2004 ) examined the transformative potential of blended learning and reported an increase in course completion rates, improved retention and increased student satisfaction. Comparisons between blended learning environments have been done to establish the disparity between academic achievement, grade dispersions and gender performance differences and no significant differences were found between the groups (Demirkol & Kazu, 2014 ).

However, blended learning effectiveness may be dependent on many other factors and among them student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes. Research shows that the failure of learners to continue their online education in some cases has been due to family support or increased workload leading to learner dropout (Park & Choi, 2009 ) as well as little time for study. Additionally, it is dependent on learner interactions with instructors since failure to continue with online learning is attributed to this. In Greer, Hudson & Paugh’s study as cited in Park and Choi ( 2009 ), family and peer support for learners is important for success in online and face-to-face learning. Support is needed for learners from all areas in web-based courses and this may be from family, friends, co-workers as well as peers in class. Greer, Hudson and Paugh further noted that peer encouragement assisted new learners in computer use and applications. The authors also show that learners need time budgeting, appropriate technology tools and support from friends and family in web-based courses. Peer support is required by learners who have no or little knowledge of technology, especially computers, to help them overcome fears. Park and Choi, ( 2009 ) showed that organizational support significantly predicts learners’ stay and success in online courses because employers at times are willing to reduce learners’ workload during study as well as supervisors showing that they are interested in job-related learning for employees to advance and improve their skills.

The study by Kintu and Zhu ( 2016 ) investigated the possibility of blended learning in a Ugandan University and examined whether student characteristics (such as self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning, computer competence) and student background (such as family support, social support and management of workload) were significant factors in learner outcomes (such as motivation, satisfaction, knowledge construction and performance). The characteristics and background factors were studied along with blended learning design features such as technology quality, learner interactions, and Moodle with its tools and resources. The findings from that study indicated that learner attitudes towards blended learning were significant factors to learner satisfaction and motivation while workload management was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction. Among the blended learning design features, only learner interaction was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction.

The focus of the present study is on examining the effectiveness of blended learning taking into consideration learner characteristics/background, blended learning design elements and learning outcomes and how the former are significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

Studies like that of Morris and Lim ( 2009 ) have investigated learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes in blended learning. They however do not deal with such variables in the contexts of blended learning design as an aspect of innovative pedagogy involving the use of technology in education. Apart from the learner variables such as gender, age, experience, study time as tackled before, this study considers social and background aspects of the learners such as family and social support, self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning and management of workload to find out their relationship to blended learning effectiveness. Identifying the various types of learner variables with regard to their relationship to blended learning effectiveness is important in this study as we embark on innovative pedagogy with technology in teaching and learning.

Literature review

This review presents research about blended learning effectiveness from the perspective of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It also gives the factors that are considered to be significant for blended learning effectiveness. The selected elements are as a result of the researcher’s experiences at a Ugandan university where student learning faces challenges with regard to learner characteristics and blended learning features in adopting the use of technology in teaching and learning. We have made use of Loukis, Georgiou, and Pazalo ( 2007 ) value flow model for evaluating an e-learning and blended learning service specifically considering the effectiveness evaluation layer. This evaluates the extent of an e-learning system usage and the educational effectiveness. In addition, studies by Leidner, Jarvenpaa, Dillon and Gunawardena as cited in Selim ( 2007 ) have noted three main factors that affect e-learning and blended learning effectiveness as instructor characteristics, technology and student characteristics. Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino ( 2001 ) showed the need for examining learner characteristics for effective instructional technology use and showed that user characteristics do impact on behavioral intention to use technology. Research has dealt with learner characteristics that contribute to learner performance outcomes. They have dealt with emotional intelligence, resilience, personality type and success in an online learning context (Berenson, Boyles, & Weaver, 2008 ). Dealing with the characteristics identified in this study will give another dimension, especially for blended learning in learning environment designs and add to specific debate on learning using technology. Lin and Vassar, ( 2009 ) indicated that learner success is dependent on ability to cope with technical difficulty as well as technical skills in computer operations and internet navigation. This justifies our approach in dealing with the design features of blended learning in this study.

Learner characteristics/background and blended learning effectiveness

Studies indicate that student characteristics such as gender play significant roles in academic achievement (Oxford Group, 2013 ), but no study examines performance of male and female as an important factor in blended learning effectiveness. It has again been noted that the success of e- and blended learning is highly dependent on experience in internet and computer applications (Picciano & Seaman, 2007 ). Rigorous discovery of such competences can finally lead to a confirmation of high possibilities of establishing blended learning. Research agrees that the success of e-learning and blended learning can largely depend on students as well as teachers gaining confidence and capability to participate in blended learning (Hadad, 2007 ). Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ) note in their research that 75% of students and 72% of teachers were lacking in skills to utilize ICT based learning components due to insufficient skills and experience in computer and internet applications and this may lead to failure in e-learning and blended learning. It is therefore pertinent that since the use of blended learning applies high usage of computers, computer competence is necessary (Abubakar & Adetimirin, 2015 ) to avoid failure in applying technology in education for learning effectiveness. Rovai, ( 2003 ) noted that learners’ computer literacy and time management are crucial in distance learning contexts and concluded that such factors are meaningful in online classes. This is supported by Selim ( 2007 ) that learners need to posses time management skills and computer skills necessary for effectiveness in e- learning and blended learning. Self-regulatory skills of time management lead to better performance and learners’ ability to structure the physical learning environment leads to efficiency in e-learning and blended learning environments. Learners need to seek helpful assistance from peers and teachers through chats, email and face-to-face meetings for effectiveness (Lynch & Dembo, 2004 ). Factors such as learners’ hours of employment and family responsibilities are known to impede learners’ process of learning, blended learning inclusive (Cohen, Stage, Hammack, & Marcus, 2012 ). It was also noted that a common factor in failure and learner drop-out is the time conflict which is compounded by issues of family , employment status as well as management support (Packham, Jones, Miller, & Thomas, 2004 ). A study by Thompson ( 2004 ) shows that work, family, insufficient time and study load made learners withdraw from online courses.

Learner attitudes to blended learning can result in its effectiveness and these shape behavioral intentions which usually lead to persistence in a learning environment, blended inclusive. Selim, ( 2007 ) noted that the learners’ attitude towards e-learning and blended learning are success factors for these learning environments. Learner performance by age and gender in e-learning and blended learning has been found to indicate no significant differences between male and female learners and different age groups (i.e. young, middle-aged and old above 45 years) (Coldwell, Craig, Paterson, & Mustard, 2008 ). This implies that the potential for blended learning to be effective exists and is unhampered by gender or age differences.

Blended learning design features

The design features under study here include interactions, technology with its quality, face-to-face support and learning management system tools and resources.

Research shows that absence of learner interaction causes failure and eventual drop-out in online courses (Willging & Johnson, 2009 ) and the lack of learner connectedness was noted as an internal factor leading to learner drop-out in online courses (Zielinski, 2000 ). It was also noted that learners may not continue in e- and blended learning if they are unable to make friends thereby being disconnected and developing feelings of isolation during their blended learning experiences (Willging & Johnson, 2009). Learners’ Interactions with teachers and peers can make blended learning effective as its absence makes learners withdraw (Astleitner, 2000 ). Loukis, Georgious and Pazalo (2007) noted that learners’ measuring of a system’s quality, reliability and ease of use leads to learning efficiency and can be so in blended learning. Learner success in blended learning may substantially be affected by system functionality (Pituch & Lee, 2006 ) and may lead to failure of such learning initiatives (Shrain, 2012 ). It is therefore important to examine technology quality for ensuring learning effectiveness in blended learning. Tselios, Daskalakis, and Papadopoulou ( 2011 ) investigated learner perceptions after a learning management system use and found out that the actual system use determines the usefulness among users. It is again noted that a system with poor response time cannot be taken to be useful for e-learning and blended learning especially in cases of limited bandwidth (Anderson, 2004 ). In this study, we investigate the use of Moodle and its tools as a function of potential effectiveness of blended learning.

The quality of learning management system content for learners can be a predictor of good performance in e-and blended learning environments and can lead to learner satisfaction. On the whole, poor quality technology yields no satisfaction by users and therefore the quality of technology significantly affects satisfaction (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001 ). Continued navigation through a learning management system increases use and is an indicator of success in blended learning (Delone & McLean, 2003 ). The efficient use of learning management system and its tools improves learning outcomes in e-learning and blended learning environments.

It is noted that learner satisfaction with a learning management system can be an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness. Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) noted that learners showed an appreciation to Moodle’s contribution in their learning. They showed positivity with it as it improved their understanding of course material (Ahmad & Al-Khanjari, 2011 ). The study by Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) used descriptive statistics to indicate improved learning by use of uploaded syllabus and session plans on Moodle. Improved learning is also noted through sharing study material, submitting assignments and using the calendar. Learners in the study found Moodle to be an effective educational tool.

In blended learning set ups, face-to-face experiences form part of the blend and learner positive attitudes to such sessions could mean blended learning effectiveness. A study by Marriot, Marriot, and Selwyn ( 2004 ) showed learners expressing their preference for face-to-face due to its facilitation of social interaction and communication skills acquired from classroom environment. Their preference for the online session was only in as far as it complemented the traditional face-to-face learning. Learners in a study by Osgerby ( 2013 ) had positive perceptions of blended learning but preferred face-to-face with its step-by-stem instruction. Beard, Harper and Riley ( 2004 ) shows that some learners are successful while in a personal interaction with teachers and peers thus prefer face-to-face in the blend. Beard however dealt with a comparison between online and on-campus learning while our study combines both, singling out the face-to-face part of the blend. The advantage found by Beard is all the same relevant here because learners in blended learning express attitude to both online and face-to-face for an effective blend. Researchers indicate that teacher presence in face-to-face sessions lessens psychological distance between them and the learners and leads to greater learning. This is because there are verbal aspects like giving praise, soliciting for viewpoints, humor, etc and non-verbal expressions like eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, etc which make teachers to be closer to learners psychologically (Kelley & Gorham, 2009 ).

Learner outcomes

The outcomes under scrutiny in this study include performance, motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction. Motivation is seen here as an outcome because, much as cognitive factors such as course grades are used in measuring learning outcomes, affective factors like intrinsic motivation may also be used to indicate outcomes of learning (Kuo, Walker, Belland, & Schroder, 2013 ). Research shows that high motivation among online learners leads to persistence in their courses (Menager-Beeley, 2004 ). Sankaran and Bui ( 2001 ) indicated that less motivated learners performed poorly in knowledge tests while those with high learning motivation demonstrate high performance in academics (Green, Nelson, Martin, & Marsh, 2006 ). Lim and Kim, ( 2003 ) indicated that learner interest as a motivation factor promotes learner involvement in learning and this could lead to learning effectiveness in blended learning.

Learner satisfaction was noted as a strong factor for effectiveness of blended and online courses (Wilging & Johnson, 2009) and dissatisfaction may result from learners’ incompetence in the use of the learning management system as an effective learning tool since, as Islam ( 2014 ) puts it, users may be dissatisfied with an information system due to ease of use. A lack of prompt feedback for learners from course instructors was found to cause dissatisfaction in an online graduate course. In addition, dissatisfaction resulted from technical difficulties as well as ambiguous course instruction Hara and Kling ( 2001 ). These factors, once addressed, can lead to learner satisfaction in e-learning and blended learning and eventual effectiveness. A study by Blocker and Tucker ( 2001 ) also showed that learners had difficulties with technology and inadequate group participation by peers leading to dissatisfaction within these design features. Student-teacher interactions are known to bring satisfaction within online courses. Study results by Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that student-teacher interaction strongly related with student satisfaction and high learner-learner interaction resulted in higher levels of course satisfaction. Descriptive results by Naaj, Nachouki, and Ankit ( 2012 ) showed that learners were satisfied with technology which was a video-conferencing component of blended learning with a mean of 3.7. The same study indicated student satisfaction with instructors at a mean of 3.8. Askar and Altun, ( 2008 ) found that learners were satisfied with face-to-face sessions of the blend with t-tests and ANOVA results indicating female scores as higher than for males in the satisfaction with face-to-face environment of the blended learning.

Studies comparing blended learning with traditional face-to-face have indicated that learners perform equally well in blended learning and their performance is unaffected by the delivery method (Kwak, Menezes, & Sherwood, 2013 ). In another study, learning experience and performance are known to improve when traditional course delivery is integrated with online learning (Stacey & Gerbic, 2007 ). Such improvement as noted may be an indicator of blended learning effectiveness. Our study however, delves into improved performance but seeks to establish the potential of blended learning effectiveness by considering grades obtained in a blended learning experiment. Score 50 and above is considered a pass in this study’s setting and learners scoring this and above will be considered to have passed. This will make our conclusions about the potential of blended learning effectiveness.

Regarding knowledge construction, it has been noted that effective learning occurs where learners are actively involved (Nurmela, Palonen, Lehtinen & Hakkarainen, 2003 , cited in Zhu, 2012 ) and this may be an indicator of learning environment effectiveness. Effective blended learning would require that learners are able to initiate, discover and accomplish the processes of knowledge construction as antecedents of blended learning effectiveness. A study by Rahman, Yasin and Jusoff ( 2011 ) indicated that learners were able to use some steps to construct meaning through an online discussion process through assignments given. In the process of giving and receiving among themselves, the authors noted that learners learned by writing what they understood. From our perspective, this can be considered to be accomplishment in the knowledge construction process. Their study further shows that learners construct meaning individually from assignments and this stage is referred to as pre-construction which for our study, is an aspect of discovery in the knowledge construction process.

Predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Researchers have dealt with success factors for online learning or those for traditional face-to-face learning but little is known about factors that predict blended learning effectiveness in view of learner characteristics and blended learning design features. This part of our study seeks to establish the learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features that predict blended learning effectiveness with regard to satisfaction, outcomes, motivation and knowledge construction. Song, Singleton, Hill, and Koh ( 2004 ) examined online learning effectiveness factors and found out that time management (a self-regulatory factor) was crucial for successful online learning. Eom, Wen, and Ashill ( 2006 ) using a survey found out that interaction, among other factors, was significant for learner satisfaction. Technical problems with regard to instructional design were a challenge to online learners thus not indicating effectiveness (Song et al., 2004 ), though the authors also indicated that descriptive statistics to a tune of 75% and time management (62%) impact on success of online learning. Arbaugh ( 2000 ) and Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that high levels of learner-instructor interaction are associated with high levels of user satisfaction and learning outcomes. A study by Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) indicated that technology and learner interactions, among other factors, influenced learner satisfaction in blended learning.

Objective and research questions of the current study

The objective of the current study is to investigate the effectiveness of blended learning in view of student satisfaction, knowledge construction, performance and intrinsic motivation and how they are related to student characteristics and blended learning design features in a blended learning environment.

Research questions

What are the student characteristics and blended learning design features for an effective blended learning environment?

Which factors (among the learner characteristics and blended learning design features) predict student satisfaction, learning outcomes, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction?

Conceptual model of the present study

The reviewed literature clearly shows learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features play a part in blended learning effectiveness and some of them are significant predictors of effectiveness. The conceptual model for our study is depicted as follows (Fig.  1 ):

Conceptual model of the current study

Research design

This research applies a quantitative design where descriptive statistics are used for the student characteristics and design features data, t-tests for the age and gender variables to determine if they are significant in blended learning effectiveness and regression for predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

This study is based on an experiment in which learners participated during their study using face-to-face sessions and an on-line session of a blended learning design. A learning management system (Moodle) was used and learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features were measured in relation to learning effectiveness. It is therefore a planning evaluation research design as noted by Guskey ( 2000 ) since the outcomes are aimed at blended learning implementation at MMU. The plan under which the various variables were tested involved face-to-face study at the beginning of a 17 week semester which was followed by online teaching and learning in the second half of the semester. The last part of the semester was for another face-to-face to review work done during the online sessions and final semester examinations. A questionnaire with items on student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes was distributed among students from three schools and one directorate of postgraduate studies.

Participants

Cluster sampling was used to select a total of 238 learners to participate in this study. Out of the whole university population of students, three schools and one directorate were used. From these, one course unit was selected from each school and all the learners following the course unit were surveyed. In the school of Education ( n  = 70) and Business and Management Studies ( n  = 133), sophomore students were involved due to the fact that they have been introduced to ICT basics during their first year of study. Students of the third year were used from the department of technology in the School of Applied Sciences and Technology ( n  = 18) since most of the year two courses had a lot of practical aspects that could not be used for the online learning part. From the Postgraduate Directorate ( n  = 17), first and second year students were selected because learners attend a face-to-face session before they are given paper modules to study away from campus.

The study population comprised of 139 male students representing 58.4% and 99 females representing 41.6% with an average age of 24 years.

Instruments

The end of semester results were used to measure learner performance. The online self-regulated learning questionnaire (Barnard, Lan, To, Paton, & Lai, 2009 ) and the intrinsic motivation inventory (Deci & Ryan, 1982 ) were applied to measure the constructs on self regulation in the student characteristics and motivation in the learning outcome constructs. Other self-developed instruments were used for the other remaining variables of attitudes, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, satisfaction, knowledge construction, technology quality, interactions, learning management system tools and resources and face-to-face support.

Instrument reliability

Cronbach’s alpha was used to test reliability and the table below gives the results. All the scales and sub-scales had acceptable internal consistency reliabilities as shown in Table  1 below:

Data analysis

First, descriptive statistics was conducted. Shapiro-Wilk test was done to test normality of the data for it to qualify for parametric tests. The test results for normality of our data before the t- test resulted into significant levels (Male = .003, female = .000) thereby violating the normality assumption. We therefore used the skewness and curtosis results which were between −1.0 and +1.0 and assumed distribution to be sufficiently normal to qualify the data for a parametric test, (Pallant, 2010 ). An independent samples t -test was done to find out the differences in male and female performance to explain the gender characteristics in blended learning effectiveness. A one-way ANOVA between subjects was conducted to establish the differences in performance between age groups. Finally, multiple regression analysis was done between student variables and design elements with learning outcomes to determine the significant predictors for blended learning effectiveness.

Student characteristics, blended learning design features and learning outcomes ( RQ1 )

A t- test was carried out to establish the performance of male and female learners in the blended learning set up. This was aimed at finding out if male and female learners do perform equally well in blended learning given their different roles and responsibilities in society. It was found that male learners performed slightly better ( M  = 62.5) than their female counterparts ( M  = 61.1). An independent t -test revealed that the difference between the performances was not statistically significant ( t  = 1.569, df = 228, p  = 0.05, one tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means is small with effect size ( d  = 0.18). A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted on the performance of different age groups to establish the performance of learners of young and middle aged age groups (20–30, young & and 31–39, middle aged). This revealed a significant difference in performance (F(1,236 = 8.498, p < . 001).

Average percentages of the items making up the self regulated learning scale are used to report the findings about all the sub-scales in the learner characteristics/background scale. Results show that learner self-regulation was good enough at 72.3% in all the sub-scales of goal setting, environment structuring, task strategies, time management, help-seeking and self-evaluation among learners. The least in the scoring was task strategies at 67.7% and the highest was learner environment structuring at 76.3%. Learner attitude towards blended learning environment is at 76% in the sub-scales of learner autonomy, quality of instructional materials, course structure, course interface and interactions. The least scored here is attitude to course structure at 66% and their attitudes were high on learner autonomy and course interface both at 82%. Results on the learners’ computer competences are summarized in percentages in the table below (Table  2 ):

It can be seen that learners are skilled in word processing at 91%, email at 63.5%, spreadsheets at 68%, web browsers at 70.2% and html tools at 45.4%. They are therefore good enough in word processing and web browsing. Their computer confidence levels are reported at 75.3% and specifically feel very confident when it comes to working with a computer (85.7%). Levels of family and social support for learners during blended learning experiences are at 60.5 and 75% respectively. There is however a low score on learners being assisted by family members in situations of computer setbacks (33.2%) as 53.4% of the learners reported no assistance in this regard. A higher percentage (85.3%) is reported on learners getting support from family regarding provision of essentials for learning such as tuition. A big percentage of learners spend two hours on study while at home (35.3%) followed by one hour (28.2%) while only 9.7% spend more than three hours on study at home. Peers showed great care during the blended learning experience (81%) and their experiences were appreciated by the society (66%). Workload management by learners vis-à-vis studying is good at 60%. Learners reported that their workmates stand in for them at workplaces to enable them do their study in blended learning while 61% are encouraged by their bosses to go and improve their skills through further education and training. On the time spent on other activities not related to study, majority of the learners spend three hours (35%) while 19% spend 6 hours. Sixty percent of the learners have to answer to someone when they are not attending to other activities outside study compared to the 39.9% who do not and can therefore do study or those other activities.

The usability of the online system, tools and resources was below average as shown in the table below in percentages (Table  3 ):

However, learners became skilled at navigating around the learning management system (79%) and it was easy for them to locate course content, tools and resources needed such as course works, news, discussions and journal materials. They effectively used the communication tools (60%) and to work with peers by making posts (57%). They reported that online resources were well organized, user friendly and easy to access (71%) as well as well structured in a clear and understandable manner (72%). They therefore recommended the use of online resources for other course units in future (78%) because they were satisfied with them (64.3%). On the whole, the online resources were fine for the learners (67.2%) and useful as a learning resource (80%). The learners’ perceived usefulness/satisfaction with online system, tools, and resources was at 81% as the LMS tools helped them to communicate, work with peers and reflect on their learning (74%). They reported that using moodle helped them to learn new concepts, information and gaining skills (85.3%) as well as sharing what they knew or learned (76.4%). They enjoyed the course units (78%) and improved their skills with technology (89%).

Learner interactions were seen from three angles of cognitivism, collaborative learning and student-teacher interactions. Collaborative learning was average at 50% with low percentages in learners posting challenges to colleagues’ ideas online (34%) and posting ideas for colleagues to read online (37%). They however met oftentimes online (60%) and organized how they would work together in study during the face-to-face meetings (69%). The common form of communication medium frequently used by learners during the blended learning experience was by phone (34.5%) followed by whatsapp (21.8%), face book (21%), discussion board (11.8%) and email (10.9%). At the cognitive level, learners interacted with content at 72% by reading the posted content (81%), exchanging knowledge via the LMS (58.4%), participating in discussions on the forum (62%) and got course objectives and structure introduced during the face-to-face sessions (86%). Student-teacher interaction was reported at 71% through instructors individually working with them online (57.2%) and being well guided towards learning goals (81%). They did receive suggestions from instructors about resources to use in their learning (75.3%) and instructors provided learning input for them to come up with their own answers (71%).

The technology quality during the blended learning intervention was rated at 69% with availability of 72%, quality of the resources was at 68% with learners reporting that discussion boards gave right content necessary for study (71%) and the email exchanges containing relevant and much needed information (63.4%) as well as chats comprising of essential information to aid the learning (69%). Internet reliability was rated at 66% with a speed considered averagely good to facilitate online activities (63%). They however reported that there was intermittent breakdown during online study (67%) though they could complete their internet program during connection (63.4%). Learners eventually found it easy to download necessary materials for study in their blended learning experiences (71%).

Learner extent of use of the learning management system features was as shown in the table below in percentage (Table  4 ):

From the table, very rarely used features include the blog and wiki while very often used ones include the email, forum, chat and calendar.

The effectiveness of the LMS was rated at 79% by learners reporting that they found it useful (89%) and using it makes their learning activities much easier (75.2%). Moodle has helped learners to accomplish their learning tasks more quickly (74%) and that as a LMS, it is effective in teaching and learning (88%) with overall satisfaction levels at 68%. However, learners note challenges in the use of the LMS regarding its performance as having been problematic to them (57%) and only 8% of the learners reported navigation while 16% reported access as challenges.

Learner attitudes towards Face-to-face support were reported at 88% showing that the sessions were enjoyable experiences (89%) with high quality class discussions (86%) and therefore recommended that the sessions should continue in blended learning (89%). The frequency of the face-to-face sessions is shown in the table below as preferred by learners (Table  5 ).

Learners preferred face-to-face sessions after every month in the semester (33.6%) and at the beginning of the blended learning session only (27.7%).

Learners reported high intrinsic motivation levels with interest and enjoyment of tasks at 83.7%, perceived competence at 70.2%, effort/importance sub-scale at 80%, pressure/tension reported at 54%. The pressure percentage of 54% arises from learners feeling nervous (39.2%) and a lot of anxiety (53%) while 44% felt a lot of pressure during the blended learning experiences. Learners however reported the value/usefulness of blended learning at 91% with majority believing that studying online and face-to-face had value for them (93.3%) and were therefore willing to take part in blended learning (91.2%). They showed that it is beneficial for them (94%) and that it was an important way of studying (84.3%).

Learner satisfaction was reported at 81% especially with instructors (85%) high percentage reported on encouraging learner participation during the course of study 93%, course content (83%) with the highest being satisfaction with the good relationship between the objectives of the course units and the content (90%), technology (71%) with a high percentage on the fact that the platform was adequate for the online part of the learning (76%), interactions (75%) with participation in class at 79%, and face-to-face sessions (91%) with learner satisfaction high on face-to-face sessions being good enough for interaction and giving an overview of the courses when objectives were introduced at 92%.

Learners’ knowledge construction was reported at 78% with initiation and discovery scales scoring 84% with 88% specifically for discovering the learning points in the course units. The accomplishment scale in knowledge construction scored 71% and specifically the fact that learners were able to work together with group members to accomplish learning tasks throughout the study of the course units (79%). Learners developed reports from activities (67%), submitted solutions to discussion questions (68%) and did critique peer arguments (69%). Generally, learners performed well in blended learning in the final examination with an average pass of 62% and standard deviation of 7.5.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness ( RQ 2)

A standard multiple regression analysis was done taking learner characteristics/background and design features as predictor variables and learning outcomes as criterion variables. The data was first tested to check if it met the linear regression test assumptions and results showed the correlations between the independent variables and each of the dependent variables (highest 0.62 and lowest 0.22) as not being too high, which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem in our model. From the coefficients table, the VIF values ranged from 1.0 to 2.4, well below the cut off value of 10 and indicating no possibility of multicollinearity. The normal probability plot was seen to lie as a reasonably straight diagonal from bottom left to top right indicating normality of our data. Linearity was found suitable from the scatter plot of the standardized residuals and was rectangular in distribution. Outliers were no cause for concern in our data since we had only 1% of all cases falling outside 3.0 thus proving the data as a normally distributed sample. Our R -square values was at 0.525 meaning that the independent variables explained about 53% of the variance in overall satisfaction, motivation and knowledge construction of the learners. All the models explaining the three dependent variables of learner satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction were significant at the 0.000 probability level (Table  6 ).

From the table above, design features (technology quality and online tools and resources), and learner characteristics (attitudes to blended learning, self-regulation) were significant predictors of learner satisfaction in blended learning. This means that good technology with the features involved and the learner positive attitudes with capacity to do blended learning with self drive led to their satisfaction. The design features (technology quality, interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation and social support), were found to be significant predictors of learner knowledge construction. This implies that learners’ capacity to go on their work by themselves supported by peers and high levels of interaction using the quality technology led them to construct their own ideas in blended learning. Design features (technology quality, online tools and resources as well as learner interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation), significantly predicted the learners’ intrinsic motivation in blended learning suggesting that good technology, tools and high interaction levels with independence in learning led to learners being highly motivated. Finally, none of the independent variables considered under this study were predictors of learning outcomes (grade).

In this study we have investigated learning outcomes as dependent variables to establish if particular learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features are related to the outcomes for blended learning effectiveness and if they predict learning outcomes in blended learning. We took students from three schools out of five and one directorate of post-graduate studies at a Ugandan University. The study suggests that the characteristics and design features examined are good drivers towards an effective blended learning environment though a few of them predicted learning outcomes in blended learning.

Student characteristics/background, blended learning design features and learning outcomes

The learner characteristics, design features investigated are potentially important for an effective blended learning environment. Performance by gender shows a balance with no statistical differences between male and female. There are statistically significant differences ( p  < .005) in the performance between age groups with means of 62% for age group 20–30 and 67% for age group 31 –39. The indicators of self regulation exist as well as positive attitudes towards blended learning. Learners do well with word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets and web browsers but still lag below average in html tools. They show computer confidence at 75.3%; which gives prospects for an effective blended learning environment in regard to their computer competence and confidence. The levels of family and social support for learners stand at 61 and 75% respectively, indicating potential for blended learning to be effective. The learners’ balance between study and work is a drive factor towards blended learning effectiveness since their management of their workload vis a vis study time is at 60 and 61% of the learners are encouraged to go for study by their bosses. Learner satisfaction with the online system and its tools shows prospect for blended learning effectiveness but there are challenges in regard to locating course content and assignments, submitting their work and staying on a task during online study. Average collaborative, cognitive learning as well as learner-teacher interactions exist as important factors. Technology quality for effective blended learning is a potential for effectiveness though features like the blog and wiki are rarely used by learners. Face-to-face support is satisfactory and it should be conducted every month. There is high intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction as well as good performance in examinations ( M  = 62%, SD = 7.5); which indicates potentiality for blended learning effectiveness.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Among the design features, technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support are predictors of learner satisfaction while learner characteristics of self regulation and attitudes to blended learning are predictors of satisfaction. Technology quality and interactions are the only design features predicting learner knowledge construction, while social support, among the learner backgrounds, is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation as a learner characteristic is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation is the only learner characteristic predicting intrinsic motivation in blended learning while technology quality, online tools and interactions are the design features predicting intrinsic motivation. However, all the independent variables are not significant predictors of learning performance in blended learning.

The high computer competences and confidence is an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness as noted by Hadad ( 2007 ) and this study finds learners confident and competent enough for the effectiveness of blended learning. A lack in computer skills causes failure in e-learning and blended learning as noted by Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ). From our study findings, this is no threat for blended learning our case as noted by our results. Contrary to Cohen et al. ( 2012 ) findings that learners’ family responsibilities and hours of employment can impede their process of learning, it is not the case here since they are drivers to the blended learning process. Time conflict, as compounded by family, employment status and management support (Packham et al., 2004 ) were noted as causes of learner failure and drop out of online courses. Our results show, on the contrary, that these factors are drivers for blended learning effectiveness because learners have a good balance between work and study and are supported by bosses to study. In agreement with Selim ( 2007 ), learner positive attitudes towards e-and blended learning environments are success factors. In line with Coldwell et al. ( 2008 ), no statistically significant differences exist between age groups. We however note that Coldwel, et al dealt with young, middle-aged and old above 45 years whereas we dealt with young and middle aged only.

Learner interactions at all levels are good enough and contrary to Astleitner, ( 2000 ) that their absence makes learners withdraw, they are a drive factor here. In line with Loukis (2007) the LMS quality, reliability and ease of use lead to learning efficiency as technology quality, online tools are predictors of learner satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Face-to-face sessions should continue on a monthly basis as noted here and is in agreement with Marriot et al. ( 2004 ) who noted learner preference for it for facilitating social interaction and communication skills. High learner intrinsic motivation leads to persistence in online courses as noted by Menager-Beeley, ( 2004 ) and is high enough in our study. This implies a possibility of an effectiveness blended learning environment. The causes of learner dissatisfaction noted by Islam ( 2014 ) such as incompetence in the use of the LMS are contrary to our results in our study, while the one noted by Hara and Kling, ( 2001 ) as resulting from technical difficulties and ambiguous course instruction are no threat from our findings. Student-teacher interaction showed a relation with satisfaction according to Swan ( 2001 ) but is not a predictor in our study. Initiating knowledge construction by learners for blended learning effectiveness is exhibited in our findings and agrees with Rahman, Yasin and Jusof ( 2011 ). Our study has not agreed with Eom et al. ( 2006 ) who found learner interactions as predictors of learner satisfaction but agrees with Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) regarding technology as a predictor of learner satisfaction.

Conclusion and recommendations

An effective blended learning environment is necessary in undertaking innovative pedagogical approaches through the use of technology in teaching and learning. An examination of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes as factors for effectiveness can help to inform the design of effective learning environments that involve face-to-face sessions and online aspects. Most of the student characteristics and blended learning design features dealt with in this study are important factors for blended learning effectiveness. None of the independent variables were identified as significant predictors of student performance. These gaps are open for further investigation in order to understand if they can be significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness in a similar or different learning setting.

In planning to design and implement blended learning, we are mindful of the implications raised by this study which is a planning evaluation research for the design and eventual implementation of blended learning. Universities should be mindful of the interplay between the learner characteristics, design features and learning outcomes which are indicators of blended learning effectiveness. From this research, learners manifest high potential to take on blended learning more especially in regard to learner self-regulation exhibited. Blended learning is meant to increase learners’ levels of knowledge construction in order to create analytical skills in them. Learner ability to assess and critically evaluate knowledge sources is hereby established in our findings. This can go a long way in producing skilled learners who can be innovative graduates enough to satisfy employment demands through creativity and innovativeness. Technology being less of a shock to students gives potential for blended learning design. Universities and other institutions of learning should continue to emphasize blended learning approaches through installation of learning management systems along with strong internet to enable effective learning through technology especially in the developing world.

Abubakar, D. & Adetimirin. (2015). Influence of computer literacy on post-graduates’ use of e-resources in Nigerian University Libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice. From http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/ . Retrieved 18 Aug 2015.

Ahmad, N., & Al-Khanjari, Z. (2011). Effect of Moodle on learning: An Oman perception. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC), 1 (4), 746–752.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, T. (2004). Theory and Practice of Online Learning . Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in internet-basedMBAcourses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63 (4), 9–18.

Article   Google Scholar  

Askar, P. & Altun, A. (2008). Learner satisfaction on blended learning. E-Leader Krakow , 2008.

Astleitner, H. (2000) Dropout and distance education. A review of motivational and emotional strategies to reduce dropout in web-based distance education. In Neuwe Medien in Unterricht, Aus-und Weiterbildung Waxmann Munster, New York.

Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. (2009). Measuring self regulation in online and blended learning environments’. Internet and Higher Education, 12 (1), 1–6.

Beard, L. A., Harper, C., & Riley, G. (2004). Online versus on-campus instruction: student attitudes & perceptions. TechTrends, 48 (6), 29–31.

Berenson, R., Boyles, G., & Weaver, A. (2008). Emotional intelligence as a predictor for success in online learning. International Review of Research in open & Distance Learning, 9 (2), 1–16.

Blocker, J. M., & Tucker, G. (2001). Using constructivist principles in designing and integrating online collaborative interactions. In F. Fuller & R. McBride (Eds.), Distance education. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 32–36). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 457 822.

Cohen, K. E., Stage, F. K., Hammack, F. M., & Marcus, A. (2012). Persistence of master’s students in the United States: Developing and testing of a conceptual model . USA: PhD Dissertation, New York University.

Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T., & Mustard, J. (2008). Online students: Relationships between participation, demographics and academic performance. The Electronic Journal of e-learning, 6 (1), 19–30.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1982). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Available from selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2016.

Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and McLean model of information systems success: A Ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9–30.

Demirkol, M., & Kazu, I. Y. (2014). Effect of blended environment model on high school students’ academic achievement. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13 (1), 78–87.

Eom, S., Wen, H., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: an empirical investigation’. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4 (2), 215–235.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (2), 95–105.

Goyal, E., & Tambe, S. (2015). Effectiveness of Moodle-enabled blended learning in private Indian Business School teaching NICHE programs. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5 (2), 14–22.

Green, J., Nelson, G., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. (2006). The causal ordering of self-concept and academic motivation and its effect on academic achievement. International Education Journal, 7 (4), 534–546.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development . Thousands Oaks: Corwin Press.

Hadad, W. (2007). ICT-in-education toolkit reference handbook . InfoDev. from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.301.html . Retrieved 04 Aug 2015.

Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2001). Student distress in web-based distance education. Educause Quarterly. 3 (2001).

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2001). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Hofmann, J. (2014). Solutions to the top 10 challenges of blended learning. Top 10 challenges of blended learning. Available on cedma-europe.org .

Islam, A. K. M. N. (2014). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: A critical incident technique approach. Computers in Human Behaviour, 30 , 249–261.

Kelley, D. H. & Gorham, J. (2009) Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37 (3), 198–207.

Kenney, J., & Newcombe, E. (2011). Adopting a blended learning approach: Challenges, encountered and lessons learned in an action research study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15 (1), 45–57.

Kintu, M. J., & Zhu, C. (2016). Student characteristics and learning outcomes in a blended learning environment intervention in a Ugandan University. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14 (3), 181–195.

Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, L. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14 (1), 16–39.

Kwak, D. W., Menezes, F. M., & Sherwood, C. (2013). Assessing the impact of blended learning on student performance. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–136.

Lim, D. H., & Kim, H. J. (2003). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31 (4), 423–439.

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learner outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 282–293.

Lin, B., & Vassar, J. A. (2009). Determinants for success in online learning communities. International Journal of Web-based Communities, 5 (3), 340–350.

Loukis, E., Georgiou, S. & Pazalo, K. (2007). A value flow model for the evaluation of an e-learning service. ECIS, 2007 Proceedings, paper 175.

Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5 (2), 1–16.

Marriot, N., Marriot, P., & Selwyn. (2004). Accounting undergraduates’ changing use of ICT and their views on using the internet in higher education-A Research note. Accounting Education, 13 (4), 117–130.

Menager-Beeley, R. (2004). Web-based distance learning in a community college: The influence of task values on task choice, retention and commitment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (9-A), 3191.

Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11 , 185–200.

Nurmela, K., Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E. & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Developing tools for analysing CSCL process. In Wasson, B. Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, V. (eds), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp 333–342). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer.

Osgerby, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Accounting Education, 22 (1), 85–99.

Oxford Group, (2013). Blended learning-current use, challenges and best practices. From http://www.kineo.com/m/0/blended-learning-report-202013.pdf . Accessed on 17 Mar 2016.

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., & Thomas, B. (2004). E-learning and retention key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education and Training, 46 (6–7), 335–342.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Mannual (4th ed.). Maidenhead: OUP McGraw-Hill.

Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 207–217.

Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators . New York, USA: Sloan-C.

Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25 (4), 401–426.

Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47 (2), 222–244.

Rahman, S. et al, (2011). Knowledge construction process in online learning. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 8 (2), 488–492.

Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. Computers & Education, 6 (1), 1–16.

Sankaran, S., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on performance: A study in Web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28 (3), 191–198.

Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49 (2), 396–413.

Shraim, K., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2010). An e-learning approach to secondary education in Palestine: opportunities and challenges. Information Technology for Development, 16 (3), 159–173.

Shrain, K. (2012). Moving towards e-learning paradigm: Readiness of higher education instructors in Palestine. International Journal on E-Learning, 11 (4), 441–463.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics’. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (1), 59–70.

Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2007). Teaching for blended learning: research perspectives from on-campus and distance students. Education and Information Technologies, 12 , 165–174.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22 (2), 306–331.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Thompson, E. (2004). Distance education drop-out: What can we do? In R. Pospisil & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Learning Through Teaching (Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, pp. 324–332). Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.

Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 224–235.

Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to drop-out of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13 (3), 115–127.

Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–137.

Zielinski, D. (2000). Can you keep learners online? Training, 37 (3), 64–75.

Download references

Authors’ contribution

MJK conceived the study idea, developed the conceptual framework, collected the data, analyzed it and wrote the article. CZ gave the technical advice concerning the write-up and advised on relevant corrections to be made before final submission. EK did the proof-reading of the article as well as language editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mountains of the Moon University, P.O. Box 837, Fort Portal, Uganda

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Edmond Kagambe

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, 1050, Ixelles, Belgium

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Chang Zhu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mugenyi Justice Kintu .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kintu, M.J., Zhu, C. & Kagambe, E. Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14 , 7 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Download citation

Received : 13 July 2016

Accepted : 23 November 2016

Published : 06 February 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Blended learning effectiveness
• Learner characteristics
• Design features
• Learning outcomes and significant predictors

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Psychol Res Behav Manag

A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews on Blended Learning: Trends, Gaps and Future Directions

Muhammad azeem ashraf.

1 Research Institute of Education Science, Hunan University, Changsha, People’s Republic of China

Meijia Yang

Yufeng zhang, mouna denden.

2 Research Laboratory of Technologies of Information and Communication & Electrical Engineering (LaTICE), Tunis Higher School of Engineering (ENSIT), Tunis, Tunisia

Ahmed Tlili

3 Smart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

4 School of Professional Studies, Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA

Ronghuai Huang

Daniel burgos.

5 Research Institute for Innovation & Technology in Education (UNIR iTED), Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Logroño, 26006, Spain

Blended Learning (BL) is one of the most used methods in education to promote active learning and enhance students’ learning outcomes. Although BL has existed for over a decade, there are still several challenges associated with it. For instance, the teachers’ and students’ individual differences, such as their behaviors and attitudes, might impact their adoption of BL. These challenges are further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, as schools and universities had to combine both online and offline courses to keep up with health regulations. This study conducts a systematic review of systematic reviews on BL, based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, to identify BL trends, gaps and future directions. The obtained findings highlight that BL was mostly investigated in higher education and targeted students in the first place. Additionally, most of the BL research is coming from developed countries, calling for cross-collaborations to facilitate BL adoption in developing countries in particular. Furthermore, a lack of ICT skills and infrastructure are the most encountered challenges by teachers, students and institutions. The findings of this study can create a roadmap to facilitate the adoption of BL. The findings of this study could facilitate the design and adoption of BL which is one of the possible solutions to face major health challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction

Blended Learning (BL) is one of the most frequently used approaches related to the application of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in education. 1 In its simplest definition, BL aims to combine face-to-face (F2F) and online settings, resulting in better learning engagement and flexible learning experiences, with rich settings way further the use of a simple online content repository to support the face-to-face classes. 2 , 3 Researchers and practitioners have used different terms to refer to the blended learning approach, including “brick and click” instruction, 4 hybrid learning, 4 dual-mode instruction, 5 blended pedagogies, 4 HyFlex learning, 6 targeted learning, 4 multimodal learning and flipped learning. 3

Researchers and practitioners have pointed out that designing BL experiences could be complex, as several features need to be considered, including the quality of learning experiences, learning instruction, learning technologies/tools and applied pedagogies. 7–9 Therefore, they have focused on investigating different BL perspectives since 2000. 10 Despite this 21-year investigation and research, there are still several challenges and unanswered questions related to BL, including the quality of the designed learning materials 9 , 11 , 12 applied learning instructions, 9 the culture of resisting this approach, 13 , 14 and teachers being overloaded when applying BL. 15 The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the challenges associated with BL. Specifically, international universities and schools worldwide had to take several actions with respect to health regulations, such as reducing classroom sizes. 16 Therefore, they combined online and offline learning to maintain their courses for both on-campus and off-campus experiences. 16 For instance, as a response to the effort made by the government of Indonesia to carry out physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, in all domains including education, some elementary schools used BL with Moodle platform to ensure the continuity of learning. 17 In this context, several teachers raised concerns about implementing BL experiences, such as the lack of infrastructure and competencies to do so, calling for further investigation in this regard. Several international organizations, such as UNESCO and ILO, claimed that teacher professional development for online and blended learning is one of the priorities for building resilient education systems for the future. 18

Based on the background above, it is seen that there is still room for discussion of designing and implementing effective BL. Researchers have suggested that conducting literature reviews can help identify challenges and solutions in a given domain. 19–21 Review papers may serve the development of new theories and also shape future research studies, as well as disseminate knowledge to promote scientific discussion and reflection about concepts, methods and practices. However, several BL systematic reviews were conducted in the literature which are of variable quality, focus and geographical region. This made the BL literature fragmented, where no study provides a comprehensive summary that could be a reference for different stakeholders to adopt BL. In this context, Smith et al mentioned that a logical and appropriate next step is to conduct a systematic review of reviews of the topic under consideration, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, thereby providing comprehensive and in-depth findings for different stakeholders. 22 As BL is becoming the new normal, 23 this study takes a step further beyond simply conducting a systematic review and conducts a systematic review of systematic reviews on BL. By systematically examining high-quality published literature review articles, this study reveals the reported BL trends and challenges, as well as research gaps and future paths. These findings could help different stakeholders (eg, policy makers, teachers, instructional designers, etc.) to facilitate the design and adoption of BL worldwide. Although several systematic reviews of literature reviews have been conducted in different fields, such as engineering, 24 healthcare 25 and tourism, 26 no one was conducted on blended learning, to the best of our knowledge. It should be noted that one study was conducted in this context, but it mainly focused on the transparency of the systematic reviews that were conducted 27 and was not about the BL field itself.

Guided by the technology-based learning model (see Figure 1 ), this study aims to answer the following six research questions:

Blended learning model.

RQ1. What are the trends of blended learning research in terms of: publication year, geographic region and publication venue?

RQ2. What are the covered subject areas in blended learning research?

RQ3. Who are the covered participants (stakeholders) in blended learning research?

RQ4. What are the most frequently used research methods (in systematic reviews) in blended learning research?

RQ5. How blended learning was designed in terms of the used learning models and technologies?

RQ6. What are the learning outcomes of blended learning, as well as the associated challenges?

The findings of this study could help to analyze the behaviors and attitudes of different stakeholders from different BL contexts, hence draw a comprehensive understanding of BL and its impact from different international perspectives. This can promote cross-country collaboration and more open BL design that more worldwide universities could be involved in. The findings could also facilitate the design (eg, in terms of the used learning models and technologies) and adoption of BL which is one of the possible solutions to face major health challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methodology

This study presents a systematic review of systematic review papers on BL. In particular, this review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. 28 PRISMA provides a standard peer-accepted methodology that uses a guideline checklist, which was strictly followed for this study, to contribute to the quality assurance of the revision process and to ensure its replicability. A review protocol was developed, describing the search strategy and article selection criteria, quality assessment, data extraction and data analysis procedures.

Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

To deal with this topic, an extensive search for research articles was undertaken in the most common and highly valued electronic databases: Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, 29 using the following search strings.

Search string: ((blending learning substring) AND (literature review substring))

Blended learning substring: “Blended learning” OR “blended education” OR “hybrid learning” OR “flipped classroom” OR “flipped learning” OR “inverted classroom” OR “mixed-mode instruction” OR “HyFlex learning”

Literature review substring: “Review” OR “Systematic review” OR “state-of-art” OR “state of the art” OR “state of art” OR “meta-analysis” OR “meta analytic study” OR “mapping stud*” OR “overview”

Databases were searched separately by two of the authors. After searching the relevant databases, the two authors independently analyzed the retrieved papers by titles and abstracts, and papers that clearly were not systematic reviews, such as empirical, descriptive and conceptual papers, were excluded. Then, the two authors independently performed an eligibility assessment by carefully screening the full texts of the remaining papers, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in Table 1 . During this phase, disagreements between the authors were resolved by discussion or arbitration from a third author. Specifically, to provide high-quality papers, this study was restricted to papers published in journals.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

This research yielded a total of 972 articles. After removing duplicated papers, 816 papers remained. 672 papers were then removed based on the screening of titles and abstracts. The remaining 144 papers were considered and assessed as full texts. 85 of these papers did not pass the inclusion criteria. Thus, as a total number, 57 eligible research studies remained for inclusion in the systematic review. Figure 2 presents the study selection process as recommended by the PRISMA group. 28

Flowchart of the systematic review process.

Quality Assessment

For methodological quality evaluation, the AMSTAR assessment tool was used. AMSTAR is widely used as a valuable tool to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews conducted in any academic field. 30 It consists of 11 items that evaluate whether the review was guided by a protocol, whether there was duplicate study selection and data extraction, the comprehensiveness of the search, the inclusion of grey literature, the use of quality assessment, the appropriateness of data synthesis and the documentation of conflicts of interest. Specifically, two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the included reviews using the AMSTAR checklist. Items were evaluated as “Yes” (meaning the item has been properly handled, 1 point), “No” (indicating the possibility that the item did not perform well, 0 points) or “Not applicable” (in the case of performance failure because the item was not applied, 0 points). Disagreements regarding the AMSTAR score were resolved by discussion or by a decision made by a third author.

Appendix 1 presents the results of the quality assessment of the 57 systematic reviews based on the AMSTAR tool. 19 were rated as being low quality (AMSTAR score 0–4), 30 as being moderate quality (score 5–8), and eight as being high quality (score 9–11). Specifically, no study has acknowledged the conflict of interest in both the systematic review and the included studies. Also, few studies provided the list of the included and excluded studies (3 out of 57), and reported the method used to combine the findings of the studies (13 out of 57). About half of the included studies assessed the scientific quality of the included studies (25 out of 57), but all the studies fulfilled at least one quality criterion.

Data Extraction

This study adapted the technology-based learning model, 31 which has been used in BL contexts, 32 , 33 as shown in Figure 1 . This model is based on six factors: subject area, learning models, participants, outcomes and issues, research methods and adopted technologies. The current study adopted most of the schemes from this model but made slight adjustments according to the features of different models in blended learning. Table 2 presents a detailed description of the coding scheme that was used in this study to answer the aforementioned research questions.

The Coding Scheme for Analyzing the Collected Papers

Results and Discussion

Blended learning trends.

Figure 3 shows that the first two systematic reviews on BL were conducted in 2012. The first, by Keengwe and Kang, 34 investigated the effectiveness of BL practices in the teacher education field. The second was by Rowe et al, 35 which investigated how to incorporate BL in clinical settings and health education. These findings show an early interest in providing teachers with the necessary competencies and skills to use BL, as well as in enhancing health education, where students need more practical knowledge and skills that could be facilitated through BL (eg, simulation health videos, virtual labs, etc.). The number of literature reviews conducted has since increased, showing an increased interest in BL over the years. Specifically, the highest peak of literature reviews conducted on blended learning was in 2020 (16 studies). This might be due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced most institutions worldwide to implement BL (online merged with offline) to accommodate the needs of learners in this disruptive time. 18 This has encouraged many institutions to make their own attempts to practice BL and thus furthered the research interest in examining the best practices of BL.

Distribution of studies by publication year.

Additionally, according to the authors’ affiliation countries (see Figure 4 ), China and the United States have the highest number of publications, with nine and seven studies respectively. This could be explained by the continuous rapid evolution of the technological education industry in both China and the United States, 36 which has made researchers and educators innovate to provide more flexible learning experiences by combining both online and offline environments. 37 This could also be explained by the number of blended learning policies that have been issued in these two countries to facilitate blended learning adoption. 38 , 39

Distribution of studies per country.

Interestingly, while several studies are from Europe (eg, Belgium, the UK, Italy, etc.), there are very few studies from the African and Arab regions. Similarly, in BL contexts, Birgili et al 40 conducted a systematic review about flipped learning between 2012 and 2018; they found very few studies coming from Africa. This indicates a trend where countries with more sufficient educational resources and infrastructure are exposed to more chances to develop BL environments and experiences. These findings call for more cross-country collaboration to facilitate the implementation of BL in the countries that have limited knowledge or infrastructure related to BL. For instance, such a collaboration could cover BL policies, ICT trainings and the development of educational resources and technologies.

Finally, the 57 reviews were published in 44 journals. Figure 5 shows the journals that have at least two publications. Education and Information Technologies has the highest number of publications (six studies), followed by Interactive Learning Environments (four studies) and Nurse Education Today (four studies). These journals are mostly from the educational technology and health fields.

Distribution of studies by publication venue.

Subject Area

Figure 6 shows that most of the literature review studies (n = 21) did not mention the covered subject area and discussed BL in general. For example, Wang et al proposed a complex adaptive systems framework to conduct analysis on BL literature. 41 This shows that, despite the popularity of BL, which has existed for a decade, educators and researchers are still finding it to be a complex concept that needs further investigation regardless of the subject. 2

Distribution of studies by subject area.

Other studies considered BL as being context-dependent, 42 investigating it from different subject areas, namely health (14 studies), STEM (five studies) and language (three studies). This could be explained by these three subjects requiring a lot of practical knowledge, such as communication and pronunciation, programming or physical treatments, where the BL concept could provide teachers with a chance to be more innovative and offer students the possibility of practicing this practical knowledge online by using virtual labs or online virtual programming emulators, for instance. Walker et al 43 and Yeonja et al 44 found that BL is considered to be crucial for health students, and health educators have tried to integrate a wide range of advanced technology and learning tools to enhance their skill acquisition.

From these findings, it can be deduced that more research should be conducted to investigate how BL is conducted in other subject areas that are considered crucial for student performance assessment, such as mathematics. This could help researchers and practitioners compare the different BL design and assessment approaches in different subjects and come up with personalized guidelines that could help educators implement their BL in a specific subject. In this context, studies have pointed out that teachers are willing to implement BL in their courses but do not know how. 45 Additionally, as shown in Figure 6 , most of the conducted literature reviews covered limited number of studies (less than 50). Therefore, the future literature reviews on BL should cover more studies (more than 50) to have an in-depth and broad view of how BL is being implemented in different contexts by different researchers.

Participants

As Figure 7A shows, the most targeted participants by the review studies were students (n = 42) followed by teachers (n = 13) and then working adults, health professionals and researchers (one study for each). This analysis shows that none of the review studies have targeted major players in the adoption of BL, such as policy makers. Owston stated that policies on different levels (eg, institutions, faculties, technology use, data collection procedures, learning support, etc.) are crucial to advancing the adoption of BL for future education. 38 Therefore, to advance BL adoption worldwide, more reviews about BL policies and the focus of these policies – including copyright, privacy and data protection, and others, 46 , 47 – should be investigated to develop a BL policy framework to which everyone could refer.

( A ) Distribution by educational level. ( B ) Distribution by participants.

Figure 7B , on the other hand, shows that most of the review studies (n = 33) focused mainly on higher education, followed by K–12 (six studies) and teacher education (five studies). Interestingly, these findings are in line with two older studies that were conducted in 2012 (Halverson et al) 48 and 2013 (Drysdale et al), 49 where they found that BL is mostly applied in higher education. These findings clearly show that, despite the long period of time since 2012, the research setting of BL application has not changed, which calls for more serious efforts and research about BL design in other contexts, such as K–12. Especially since younger students might lack the appropriate self-regulation skills compared to older students that can help them adopt BL, 50 more support should also be provided accordingly. Additionally, as few studies focused on teacher education, more research should investigate how to harness the power of BL for teacher professional development. There are limited empirical findings on BL for teacher professional development, 34 , 51–53 calling for more investigation in this context.

Research Method

Table 3 shows that most reviews conducted were systematic reviews (n = 47). As researchers note, systematic literature reviews are usually composed with a clearly defined objective, a research question, a research approach and inclusion and exclusion criteria. 54–56 Through systematic review, researchers can come to a qualitative conclusion in response to their research question. Only seven reviews conducted meta-analysis to assess the effect size and variability of BL and to identify potential causal factors that can inform practice and further research. Finally, three studies used both systematic reviews and meta-analysis in their studies, which can quantitatively synthesize the results in an even more comprehensive way. For instance, Liu et al 57 first reviewed the literature of the effectiveness of knowledge acquisition in health-subject learners and then conducted a meta-analysis to show that BL had a significant larger pooled effect size than non-BL health-subject learners. In this way, researchers are able to address the extent to which BL is truly effective in the learning. 57 Considering that only three review papers conducted both systematic review and meta-analysis, we must again address the usefulness of quantitative analysis. There are still many unanswered questions that could be addressed in a better way using quantitative analysis. Therefore, future research should consider conducting more meta-analysis in order to provide a better understanding of the nuanced effects of BL.

Distribution of Studies by Research Method and Subject Area

Design (Learning Models and Technologies)

Figure 8 shows that the majority of review studies (33 out of 57) discussed BL as a generic concept and did not mention any specific model. Additionally, the flipped model was the most frequently implemented model, mentioned by 27 review studies. This model is designed based on three stages: pre-class, in-class and post-class (optional). In the pre-class stage, the students engage with the course content through online resources, so that they spend in-class time doing practical activities and having discussions. Then, in the post-class stage, teachers can assess the students’ perceptions and performance in the flipped course. 32

Frequency of usage of blended learning models.

The second most frequently used models were the station rotation model and the flex model (each mentioned by three studies). In the station rotation model, the student can rotate at fixed points of time (on a fixed schedule or at the teacher’s discretion) between different stations, at least one of which is an online learning station). 58 For instance, the students can rotate between face-to-face (F2F) instruction, online instruction and collaborative activities. The flex model, on the other hand, relies entirely on online materials and student self-study, with the availability of F2F teachers when needed. 59

Two review studies mentioned the self-blend (also known as the “à la carte” model) and the enriched virtual model. The first model allows students to take fully online courses with online teachers, in addition to other F2F courses. 60 In the second model, students are asked to be able to conduct F2F sessions with instructors and then can complete their assignments online, but they are not required to attend F2F classes. 60

Finally, only one study applied the mixed model, supplemental model and online practicing model. Specifically, in the mixed model, content delivery and practical activities occur both F2F and online. In the supplemental model, both content delivery and practical activities take place F2F. In contrast, in the online practicing model, students can practice activities through a specific online learning environment. In particular, the reported BL models were implemented differently in many domains. It should be noted that some studies investigated more than one BL model. For instance, Alammary investigated flipped, mixed, flex, supplemental, and online-practicing models. 59

Table 4 presents the distribution of the reviewed studies by BL models and subject areas. 22 studies (seven multiple courses and 15 uncategorized) have focused on the design of BL in general or in multiple courses. This might be explained by the fact that teachers have limited knowledge about BL models that is why they always face challenges on how to design their blended courses and mix the offline and online settings. 58 This blended learning design problem was further emphasized during the COVID-19 pandemic, where several teachers raised concerns about this matter. 61 Therefore, more BL design trainings should be provided for teachers to help them efficiently design their blended courses.

Distribution of Studies by Blended Learning Models and Subject Area

Additionally, the flipped model was frequently used in health (seven studies), followed by STEM (five studies). This may be explained by health and STEM subjects requiring many hands-on practices to promote skill acquisition and long-term retention by the student. 62 , 63 In line with this, the flipped model enables teachers to reduce the in-class time by teaching all the courses online (in the pre-class stage) and counterbalance the students’ workload, so that the class time can be reserved for practical exercises instead of traditional lectures. For instance, in the health domain, the flipped model is applied by explaining the basic concepts of the course using different learning strategies in the pre-class stage, such as online learning platforms, instructional videos, animation, PowerPoint presentations and 3D virtual gaming situations. Also, students can use social media platforms such as Facebook for online discussions. In-class activities include instructor-led training, discussion of issues, practice or doing exercises (eg, assignments or quizzes), clinical teaching (eg, nursing diagnosis training) or lab teaching. In this context, several learning technologies were used, such as traditional computers and projectors, medical or teaching equipment and simulation teaching aids. Finally, in the post-class stage, some teachers used assessment methods to evaluate students’ perception of the applied model using peer evaluation, post-class evaluation and surveys. Similarly, in STEM subjects, the in-class time was reserved for more practice, including complex exercises where students can interact with each other and with the instructor (collaborative group assignments), active learning exercises rather than lectures, gaming activities, examinations and peer instruction.

Furthermore, as Table 4 shows, the mixed, flex, supplemental and online practicing models were also applied in STEM, specifically in programming courses. 59 This may be explained by the fact that STEM subjects – and programming courses in particular – allow for flexibility; combined with emerging technologies, this enables the teaching of this course in different ways, fully online or F2F. 64 For instance, in the mixed model, students received the course content and practical coding exercises in both F2F and online sessions, reserving most of the in-class time for practical exercises and discussion. In this context, in addition to the classical learning strategies such as online self-paced learning, online collaboration and online instructor-led learning, online programming tools were also used for coding and problem solving in online sessions. In the flex model, both course content and practical coding exercises take place online, but students are required to attend F2F sessions from time to time to check their progress or be provided with feedback. In the supplemental model, both course content and practical coding exercises take place F2F. However, online supplemental activities are added to the course to increase students’ engagement with course content. In the online practicing model, an online programming environment is used as the backbone of students’ learning. It allows students to practice programming and problem solving and provides them with immediate feedback about their programming solutions. The delivery of the course content is achieved through lectures and/or self-based online resources. In some cases, online resources are integrated within the online programming environment.

Outcomes and Challenges

Figure 9 presents the different learning outcomes investigated in the 57 review studies based on two categories: psychological and behavioural outcomes. 65 The majority of studies (49 studies) focused on investigating the psychological outcomes within the reviewed studies. Specifically, students’ self-regulation toward learning was the most investigated psychological outcome (10 studies), followed by satisfaction (nine studies) and engagement (eight studies). According to Van Laer and Elen, blended learning design includes attributes that support self-regulation, including authenticity, personalization, learner control, scaffolding and interaction. 66 The 10 studies found that students’ self-regulation was improved. Additionally, BL was found to improve students’ satisfaction and engagement in different domains, especially in health (seven studies). For instance, Li et al 67 and Presti 68 found that flipped learning enhanced students’ engagement and satisfaction in nursing education. Moreover, motivation, attitude, high-order thinking, social interaction and self-efficacy were found to be improved using BL.

Distribution of learning outcomes based on the number of studies addressing them.

The most investigated behavioural outcome is academic performance (26 studies), followed by skill progression and cooperation. In particular, the 26 studies showed that BL supports learning performance in different subject areas, including health, language and STEM. BL can also enhance students’ skills, such as clinical skills in the health domain, 35 , 69 and speaking skills in the language domain. 70 Additionally, its design may include several collaborative learning assignments (online or F2F) that encourage cooperation with students. 71 It should be noted that some studies investigated more than one type of learning outcomes. For instance, Atmacasoy and Aksu investigated students’ engagement with, collaboration in, participation in and academic performance with the blended learning course. 72

Despite the many advantages that BL offers, it also comes with several challenges. Figure 10 presents the most encountered challenges in the 57 review studies. Specifically, the lack of ICT skills is the most mentioned challenge (seven studies), followed by infrastructure issues (six studies) such as internet-related problems and lack of personal computers, course preparation time (three studies), design model and cost of technologies (two studies for each) and course quality content, student engagement and student isolation (one study for each). It should be noted that 47 studies did not mention any challenges and nine studies mentioned more than one challenge each. For instance, Rasheed et al found that students, teachers and institutions may face different challenges in BL, such as students’ isolation, lack of ICT skills for teachers and students and technological provision challenges (eg, cost of online learning technologies) for institutions. 73

Distribution of blended learning challenges.

Both teachers and students from different domains might lack ICT skills, which can negatively influence their adoption of BL. For instance, Atmacasoy and Aksu stated that teachers with low ICT skills may not have positive attitudes toward using BL since it is based on technology use. 72 Teachers might find difficulties in the ease of use of some technologies while creating a BL course, such as in recording videos, uploading videos and using online learning platforms. 73 Additionally, students may face some technological complexity challenges, such as accessing online educational resources or uploading their materials to the online learning environment. 73

ICT infrastructure is also a crucial layer for facilitating and implementing blended courses; however, it is still a major problem for several universities, especially in developing countries 74 and rural areas. 75 For instance, a lack of basic technologies, including internet, computers and projectors can limit the implementation of blended courses. Therefore, it is very important to improve institutes’ ICT infrastructure in order to improve education in general and enable teachers to teach using BL, which has proven to be efficient in many subject areas (see sections above).

In addition to issues with ICT skills and infrastructure, teachers may lack knowledge about designing BL models and hence face difficulties in selecting the appropriate design for their courses, 58 and they may also spend too much time preparing the blended course. 75 , 76 Moreover, some challenges of online learning, such as engagement and students’ isolation, may be faced in BL. In this context, teachers may integrate online collaborative assignments to solve the problem of isolation 77 and integrate new approaches, such as gamification, into the online learning environment in order to make students motivated and engaged while learning online. 78 , 79 In this context, Ekici found that gamified flipped learning enhanced students’ motivation and engagement while learning. 80

This study conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews on BL. It revealed several findings according to each research question: (1) the first two systematic reviews on BL were conducted in 2012, and this number rapidly increased over the years, reflecting a massive interest in BL. Additionally, more cross-country collaboration should be established to facilitate BL implementation in countries that lack, for instance, infrastructure or the needed BL competencies; (2) despite that several studies focused on specific subject area such as health or STEM, most studies did not discuss BL from a specific subject area; (3) most of the studies targeted students as stakeholders, and neglected major key players for BL adoption, such as policy makers; (4) most of the studies conducted a systematic review with qualitative analysis. Therefore, future research should follow a more quantitative approach through meta-analysis in order to provide a better understanding of the nuanced effects of BL; (5) the majority of studies discussed BL as a generic construct and did not focus on the learning models of BL. However, the flipped model was the most frequently implemented model in the papers that focused on learning models specifically in health and STEM ; and (6) BL can affect students’ psychological and behavioural outcomes. In terms of psychological outcomes, it can enhance students’ self-regulation toward learning, satisfaction and engagement while learning in different domains, especially in health. In terms of behavioural outcomes, BL supported students’ academic performance in different subject areas. Additionally, a lack of ICT skills and infrastructure are the most encountered challenges by teachers, students and institutions.

The findings of this study can help create a roadmap about future research on BL. This could facilitate BL adoption worldwide and thus contribute to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG #4 – equity and high-quality education for all – which works as a backbone for some other SDGs, such as good health (#3), economic Growth (#8) and reduced inequality (#10). Despite the importance of the revealed findings, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. For instance, this study used a limited number of search keywords within specific electronic databases.

Future research might focus on: (1) dealing with these limitations; (2) investigating different BL models with specific application domains to test their impacts on students’ psychological and behavioural outcomes; (3) enhancing students’ motivation and engagement in online sessions by integrating new motivational concepts such as gamification in online learning platforms; and (4) dealing with BL challenges by providing some solutions to enhance the learning experience. For instance, for the challenge of a lack of ICT skills, research might work to provide ICT trainings for teachers and students to enhance their skills with technology.

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (The Research Fund for International Young Scientists; Grant No. 71950410624). However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

• DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-553-5.CH047
• Corpus ID: 7762919

Benefits and Challenges of Blended Learning Environments

• Charles R. Graham , Stephanie Allen , Donna Ure
• Published in Encyclopedia of Information… 2005
• Computer Science, Education

241 Citations

Blended learning in saudi universities: challenges and perspectives.

• Highly Influenced

BLENDED LEARNING STRATEGY IN TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS

Medium altitude long endurance rpa training: evaluating blended learning, moving toward blended learning: a multiple case design based research study in higher education.

• 10 Excerpts

An effective way of designing blended learning: A three phase design-based research approach

Factors that influence the adoption of hybrid courses in higher education, exploring social presence through group collaboration in blended learning, influence of online versus traditional learning on efl listening skills: a blended mode classroom perspective, manajemen blended learning di slb a ypab surabaya, the difference among blended learning, e-learning, and face-to-face learning, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Exploring the relationship between EFL students’ writing performance and activity theory related influencing factors in the blended learning context

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Chongqing University of Education, Chongqing, China

• Yuling Wang, 
• Shaidatul Akma Binti Adi Kasuma, 
• Salasiah Binti Che Lah, 

• Published: June 17, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668
• Reader Comments

With the rapid development of technologies, blended learning is widespread in English writing instruction. The effect of blended learning on EFL writing outcomes is affected by various factors. This study examines the relationship between EFL students’ writing performance and influencing factors and the relationship between these factors in a blended learning context based on the Activity Theory. The study used a quantitative method: English argumentative writing tests and questionnaires with 33 undergraduates. The results reveal that EFL students’ argumentative writing performance is significantly and positively correlated with five influencing factors, in descending order of correlation: subject, community, object, rules, and division of labor. Moreover, the findings suggest a significant positive relationship within each factor in the blended learning environment, except for no relationship between rules and division of labor. Furthermore, the research provides useful references and insights for further research and educational practice in blended writing instruction. Due to limitations such as the relatively small sample size, the focus on argumentative writing, and the reliance on quantitative data, this study gives the impression that the results only represent a portion of the population and situation. Therefore, future research could consider enlarging the sample size, adopting a more comprehensive range of writing genres, involving qualitative methods, or expanding the scope of research on the impact of BL on other disciplines.

Citation: Wang Y, Kasuma SABA, Lah SBC, Zhang Q (2024) Exploring the relationship between EFL students’ writing performance and activity theory related influencing factors in the blended learning context. PLoS ONE 19(6): e0305668. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668

Editor: Dawit Dibekulu Alem, Bahir Dar University, ETHIOPIA

Received: April 17, 2024; Accepted: June 3, 2024; Published: June 17, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Writing is the most challenging of the four basic linguistic skills (listening, reading, speaking, and writing) [ 1 ]. The capacity to master writing skills reflects students’ comprehensive ability of language use, so the instruction of writing is an essential component of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching. However, traditional EFL writing instruction is one-time writing, meaning the initial draft is the final [ 2 ]. Teachers are the only readers of students’ writing texts, making students accustomed to receiving teachers’ guidance and feeling that they are writing for teachers [ 3 ]. In the meantime, the number of writing texts that need to be corrected is too large for teachers, which leads to untimely feedback [ 4 , 5 ]. As a result, teachers spend much time correcting compositions, but the effect of EFL writing teaching is still not ideal [ 4 ].

Blended learning (BL) aims to maximize teaching results by combining various resources and methods [ 6 , 7 ]. Through online learning platforms, BL encourages students to carry out synchronous and asynchronous interactions and provides a potentially feedback-rich environment, enhancing student learning outcomes and fostering a continuous feedback culture [ 8 – 13 ]. To address the dilemma of traditional teaching, online learning platforms were introduced into the field of tertiary education [ 14 – 16 ], and BL has increased at a rapid rate since the early 21st century [ 17 ].

Despite students holding a positive attitude towards the BL in language learning [ 18 – 23 ], the effectiveness of blending face-to-face instruction and online learning is affected by both the merits and demerits of the two learning modes [ 17 ]. Previous studies [ 24 – 28 ] indicate that students are impacted by several factors in the BL settings, such as motivation, self-regulation skills, and network environment. Moreover, some research focused on time management and teamwork skills in BL mode [ 29 , 30 ].

Unlike the previous research, we designed survey items for five factors based on the Activity Theory (AT) [ 31 ]. The five factors, including the subject (the person who writes), the object (the purpose or task of writing), the community (the social environment in which the writing takes place), the rules (the norms and standards), and the division of labor (the distribution of tasks and responsibilities in writing activities), contribute to an understanding of EFL students’ writing activities. These factors interact with each other to form a dynamic system that affects the writing process and outcome [ 31 ]. Through analyzing these factors, we can gain insight into the nature of the writing activity and what influences the writing outcome in BL contexts.

Though few studies have attempted to investigate the relationship between EFL writing performance and various influencing factors, as far as researchers’ knowledge is concerned, no research has been conducted on the relationship between EFL students’ writing performance and the influencing factors in BL contexts based on Activity Theory. Thus, this study examines the relationship between five influencing factors (subject, object, rules, community, and division of labor) and EFL students’ writing performance, and it also explores the relationships among these influencing factors in a blended learning context. This research may help educators and teachers further understand the influencing factors of BL and provide information for instructors to design more efficient lessons of EFL writing. Also, the research results can provide a scientific basis for policymakers to promote the optimization of BL in EFL writing instruction.

2. Literature review

2.1. blended efl writing learning.

The original BL refers to the study mode integrating online learning and face-to-face teaching [ 32 ]. To meet trainees’ desires regarding place and time, enterprises explored the mix of online and face-to-face training [ 33 ]. Subsequently, this teaching mode was implemented step by step in higher education, as well as in EFL writing instruction. Previous studies [ 6 , 27 , 34 ] have demonstrated the overall effectiveness of BL on EFL writing.

Artifacts like the internet, videos, computers, mobile, and online resources are usually used by teachers to improve EFL students’ writing outcomes. According to Afilina’s [ 35 ], Karo et al.’s [ 36 ], and Sianna’s [ 37 ] findings, employing these artifacts can provide a comfortable and active writing atmosphere, increase self-confidence, and improve learning outcomes. Similarly, Park and Jung’s [ 38 ] study indicates that using videos in EFL writing instructions can stimulate students’ motivation, participation, and overall achievement. Also, Andres et al. [ 39 ] concluded that using videos with cultural content in EFL writing courses can improve vocabulary, transitional words, punctuation, linguistic structures, and ideas. Moreover, Rahimi and Fathi [ 40 ] engaged Wiki in an EFL writing course and found that it can improve writing performance, self-regulation, and self-efficacy. Therefore, involving online resources in traditional face-to-face teaching is suitable for EFL writing instruction.

Although studies about blended EFL writing learning centred around the advantages of BL, there are some challenges. For instance, compared with face-to-face instruction, BL puts forward higher requirements for students’ ability to self-regulate and learn autonomy [ 41 ]. Especially in online environments, students must arrange their learning progress reasonably and self-regulate to avoid distractions from information technology and network resources [ 28 ]. In addition, students sometimes face difficulties when conducting blended learning because of unequal access to technology and networks in different regions [ 42 ]. Some students cannot connect to the internet at home due to device issues and the lack of technology skills, which make online materials inaccessible [ 43 ]. According to Xavier and Menses’ [ 44 ] study, BL suffers from the disadvantages of students’ overloading and high dropout rates in tertiary BL courses. Furthermore, Szadziewska and Kujawski [ 45 ] reported that students perceived drawbacks of BL, such as log-in and download problems, lower motivation to learn, insufficient materials available, no solutions to tests and tasks, user-unfriendly interface, lower creativity in searching for knowledge, and no direct communication with other participants.

Moreover, as sociocultural interactions are vital to learning [ 46 ], technologies are often employed in language teaching to create a BL environment and promote EFL writing skills [ 40 , 47 – 51 ]. Jiang and Zhang’s [ 52 ] study indicates that mobile-assisted collaborative writing environments can provide explicit interactions and facilitate EFL argumentative writing performance. However, Lin et al. [ 53 ] investigated the effect of Augmented Reality (AR) applications in a writing course. They concluded that employing technologies is beneficial to long-term memory, motivation, and self-regulation in EFL writing, but it led to mixed results in writing achievements. The effect of BL on EFL writing performance may be good or bad and may be affected by many factors.

Although the previous studies [ 23 , 54 – 57 ] indicate that the use of BL is effective in improving writing performance by giving students more chances to participate, increasing the obligation to learn, exposing them to online materials, and providing interactions with others outside the classroom, few studies have analyzed the extent to which influencing factors in BL environment affect EFL writing performance. Therefore, exploring the relationship between the influencing factors and EFL writing performance in BL contexts is necessary to achieve better BL outcomes and provide valuable suggestions for the pedagogical practice in EFL writing courses.

AT is a philosophical and interdisciplinary framework that describes the meaningful behaviors of a person or a group and relates the behavior to the context. From the perspective of AT, learning is regarded as a symbolic procedure or intermediary effect in which students proactively build their knowledge environment and engage in target-oriented activities. AT evolved from Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, and the development of AT contains three generations. Vygotsky, Leont’ev, and Engeström are the representatives of the three stages and have made a breakthrough in the development of AT.

According to Vygotsky [ 46 ], human inner psychological activities cannot be separated from external behaviors and related social environments, which means the psychological and social structures interact. The construction process of personal knowledge is inseparable from the knowledge sharing of the social group.

Based on Vygotsky’s theory, Leont’ev clarified the boundary between individual and collective behavior [ 58 ]. One of Leont’ev ’s most vital contributions to the AT is that he proposed the unit of analysis in Activity Theory. He believes systematic analysis of human behavior should be divided into hierarchical levels: activity, action, and operation [ 59 ].

Engeström [ 31 ] argued that neither Leont’ev nor Vygotsky’s AT ultimately revealed the essence of the activity system. He expanded the activity model by adding rules, community, and division of labor. The bottom of Engeström’s Activity Model is composed of rules, community, and division of labor, which forms the conceptual framework integrating individual activities with society, culture, and history. Hence, activities are no longer regarded as single interactions between subject and object but collective activities.

According to Engeström’s Activity Model, an activity system consists of six interactive elements (subject, object, mediating artifacts/tools, rule, community, and division of labor), which constitute four sub-systems (production, consumption, exchange, and distribution), as shown in Fig 1 . This model places human activities in a specific sociocultural environment and provides an operable analytical framework with six elements.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

This figure illustrates Engeström’s Activity Model, which includes six elements: mediating artifacts (signs and tools), subject, object, rules, community, and division of labor. Mediating artifacts is at the top. The subject and object are in the middle. Rules, community, and division of labor are at the bottom. These elements are connected by arrows representing dynamic relationships to form a triangle. They interact with each other and ultimately influence the outcome.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.g001

The subject, often the core of research, can be individuals or groups. The object refers to the original materials or problem to which this activity is directed, which would finally be transformed into a specific outcome. Activities are influenced and restricted by rules, community, and division of labor. The community includes the participants with the same goal as the subject, and the object simultaneously impacts the subject and the ongoing collective activity. The rules mean explicit or implicit habits, standards, and social relations constraining the subject’s actions. The division of labor means the horizontal action and interaction between community members and the vertical division of authority and position. Engeström’s Activity Model [ 31 ] shows the factors and components of activities and the connections of these elements.

Blended EFL writing learning could be analyzed from an AT perspective, as it can be conceptualized as a collective and contextual activity [ 60 ]. AT has been used in EFL writing research, such as studies on the influence of feedback in improving EFL students’ writing performance [ 61 , 62 ], students’ writing strategies [ 63 ], and factors affecting EFL writing [ 64 , 65 ]. As for research in BL contexts, Pullenayegem et al. [ 66 ] adopted AT to investigate the influencing factors that English students met in their writing courses, indicating that the strict rules and the number of rules required to be followed interfered with interactions and cooperation between students. Moreover, Hajimaghsoodi and Maftoon [ 67 ] used an e-learning platform to design a language learning framework based on AT for English writing courses and surveyed its effect. The results showed the positive impact of the AT-based language learning framework in second language (L2) writing classes, and they suggested students interact with tools, communities, division of labor, and rules to achieve better learning performance.

In this study, AT is used as a lens through which to explain and demonstrate the findings. Since the current research focuses on the factors influencing EFL writing performance in a BL environment, rather than focusing on the impact of specific instruments/technologies that support the BL, the factor of tools was not included as one of the factors examined in this research. This study included five influencing factors: subject, rules, community, division of labor, and object.

• Subject: EFL students who are the actors of blended writing activities.
• Object: Finishing argumentative writing texts and improving writing performance, which are the goals or tasks of the blended writing activities.
• Rules: The constraints in blended writing activities, such as time constraints, anonymous policy, automatic evaluation criteria, grading standards, and group rules.
• Community: The social environment in which the activities take place and are influenced, such as teachers and classmates involved in the activities.
• Division of labor: The teachers’ and students’ specific responsibilities and relations in blended writing activities, such as teacher and peer feedback.

The five factors mentioned above influence EFL students’ writing outcomes in the blended writing activities. The EFL students are influenced by the writing rules and regulations when completing argumentative writing tasks in BL contexts. Teachers and classmates, who are community members, provide EFL students with rich interactions and authentic learning contexts that impact their writing development. In addition, the division of labor, such as teacher feedback and peer feedback, directly affects the quality of students’ writing by providing suggestions and collaborative learning, which in turn influence writing outcomes. These factors interact with each other to influence EFL writing performance in BL environments.

3. Methodology

The present study used a quantitative method to examine the relationship between EFL writing performance and five influencing factors in a BL context of face-to-face instruction and online activities based on the WeChat application and Pigai.org online writing platform.

3.1. Research design

The main study utilized a correlational research design and adopted AT to explore the correlation between influencing factors and EFL students’ writing performance in BL settings in terms of subject, rules, community, division of labor, and object. This research has one dependent variable and five independent variables. The samples were selected by utilizing a cluster sampling technique. They were from one class in the field of English at a university (Yangtze Normal University) in China. Although the samples are limited to one class, every effort was made to consider inclusivity in global research in the study design. This study received a waiver for ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Yangtze Normal University (Ref No. R2023-344665). Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information ( S1 Checklist ). The chosen EFL students’ (n = 33) writing performance, which was collected from the argumentative writing test, constituted the dependent variable. At the same time, the five influencing factors assessed through a five-point Likert scale questionnaire were the independent variables. The study was conducted in the following four phases: a) carried out a pilot study to evaluate the reliability and validity of the instruments and made appropriate modifications to them; b) implemented ten weeks of blended English writing instruction, which integrated classroom teaching and online learning among EFL undergraduate students. This duration enabled researchers to observe not only short-term outcomes but also potential longer-term effects or sustained changes resulting from the intervention [ 65 , 68 ]; c) argumentative writing tests and questionnaires were administered to collect quantitative data; d) analyzed the data with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and reported research findings.

3.2. Population and sample size

The population of the present study is Chinese EFL undergraduate students. We took a week (between 1 st and 7 th March 2023) to recruit participants from a general undergraduate university located in the southwest of mainland China, Yangtze Normal University, which recruits students from 91% of China’s provinces and cities so that the subjects are representative. The participants provided signed informed consent forms before starting the study.

As this study used Pearson Correlation to analyze the quantitative data, the sample size should meet the required minimum sample size. According to the sample size calculation for the Pearson Correlation [ 69 ], the following formula gives the minimal sample size of seventeen participants when choosing the most frequent significance level ( α = 0.05), the ideal statistical power (1−β = 0.8), and the large effect size (δ = 0.8) and assuming that the overall variance (σ2 = 1) and correlation coefficients (ρ = 0.5) between variables are chosen as conservative estimates [ 70 – 72 ].

Using a cluster sampling technique, this study selected a natural class of 33 students as participants in the main research. They were undergraduates majoring in English and enrolled in the English writing course, a mandatory 2-credit course designed for first-year undergraduate EFL students. Among them, 28 are females and 5 are males.

Moreover, 30 undergraduates (21 females and 9 males) majoring in English from different grades and classes at the same university, who did not take part in the main study, participated in the pilot study. Although the participants were at the same research site, they were on campus for different semesters and did not have the opportunity to meet one another during this study.

3.3. Data-gathering instruments, data collection and analysis

The current study used two data-gathering instruments to collect the data: the English argumentative writing test and the questionnaire. After a ten-week blended English writing course (from 13 th March 2023 to 26 th May 2023), a quantitative method was utilized for data collection on 2 nd June 2023, including questionnaires ( S1 Appendix ) and writing tests ( S2 Appendix ). The English argumentative writing test required participants to compose an argumentative essay on one of the provided topics within 45 minutes, the same as the writing time in the Test for English Majors-level 4 (TEM-4). The writing test provided four topics related to students’ study and life to ensure that students could choose familiar topics for argumentative writing, such as who should arrange children’s spare time activities, students should spend more time in clubs/sports or studies, different friends or similar friends, and whether it is better to live in their hometown or another city after graduating from university. The assessment criteria for writing performance ( S3 Appendix ) were adapted from Brown and Bailey [ 73 ], Hajimaghsoodi and Maftoon [ 67 ], and Jacobs [ 74 ], based on a 100-point scale, encompasses five aspects: content (30 points), style (20 points), language use (25 points), organization (20 points), and mechanics (5 points).

According to Coombe [ 75 ], the recommended number of evaluators is two, with a third in case of extreme disagreement. Two instructors with more than five years of English writing instruction experience were invited to rate the students’ writing tests, and a PhD candidate in applied linguistics as an alternate evaluator in case of disagreement. The researcher briefed the evaluators on the research design before they commenced scoring. Subsequently, the researchers used a day to train the evaluators. During the training, we comprehensively explained the scoring criteria and the scoring form on which they fill in the scores. We also established benchmarks using two argumentative compositions written by EFL undergraduate students. Then, the evaluators were asked to score two argumentative compositions, and we calibrated scoring to ensure the consistent evaluation of argumentative writing performance.

The questionnaire was designed based on AT [ 31 ] and adapted from Dwihandini et al. [ 76 ], Hajimaghsoodi and Maftoon [ 67 ], Portnov-Neeman and Barak [ 77 ], and Zeng [ 78 ]. The questionnaire items were modified to simplify and clarify the language and item structure to make the questionnaire more meaningful and contextually relevant to the respondents. For instance, all the items have changed from past to present. The clarification of wording has been improved, such as “blended learning” and “online platform” being changed to “this English writing course” and “ Pigai.org ”, respectively. As the participants were English majors, the questionnaire items were all presented in English, which was acceptable for participants. To guarantee respondents’ engagement and reduce response fatigue, the questionnaire was constrained to a maximum of 25 questions [ 79 , 80 ]. Table 1 presents details of the questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.t001

The first section of this questionnaire is demographic information. The second section of this questionnaire employed a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) and closed-ended questions. The key merit of closed-ended questions is their direct nature, leaving no subjective space for evaluators [ 81 ]. Uniformly assigning five questions to each theme ensured equitable data collection on the five variables, mitigating the potential for bias favoring any factor.

The main study has collected writing scores and questionnaires after a ten-week blended EFL writing course. All collected data were inputted into SPSS version 26 for data cleaning and analysis. Scores and responses from 33 students were analyzed, and there were no missing data. In addition to using Pearson Correlation to analyze the data, descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, and frequency were employed in this study.

3.4. Pilot study

The pilot study in this research aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the instruments (writing tests and questionnaires) and make any necessary modifications to improve the instruments.

3.4.1 Pilot-testing of the writing test.

Cohen’s Kappa analysis was used in the pilot study to assess the inter-evaluator reliability of the writing test. According to Landis and Koch [ 82 ], the results (Cohen’s kappa = 0.72, P<0.001) indicate a substantial agreement between the two evaluators in scoring. Therefore, inter-rater reliability was achieved between the raters. Moreover, the reliability of the writing test in the pilot study was assessed using the Cronbach Alpha. The result showed that Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient (0.93) was high, indicating that the writing test is reliable.

3.4.2 Pilot-testing of the questionnaire.

The reliability and validity of the questionnaire were also investigated. To determine whether the questionnaire had a proper level of internal consistency and Split-half reliability, this study used Cronbach’s α and Spearman-Brown prophecy formula in SPSS. The total scale of Cronbach’s α was 0.877, and the Split-half reliability coefficient was 0.734, indicating that the reliability of this questionnaire is at an accepted level [ 83 , 84 ].

The validity of the questionnaire is usually reflected by the indicators of content validity, construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. To ensure content validity, the questionnaire items were revised many times according to the advice given by three instructors who have more than ten years of experience in tertiary EFL writing teaching. The main revision suggestions proposed by the three experts were summed up as follows. Firstly, the tense of all items should be changed from past to present tense. Secondly, each item should be presented in a concise and non-wordy way. Finally, the “blended learning” or “blended writing course” should be changed to “this course” to allow respondents to understand the meanings of survey items clearly.

To verify the construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, this research employed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in SPSS to test the items’ loadings, Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) of each variable. As presented in Table 2 , each variable’s loadings (between 0.501 and 0.961) have reached the criterion of 0.5, and all the CR (between 0.811 and 0.899) were above 0.7, suggesting adequate construct validity [ 85 ]. Although the variables’ AVE (ranging from 0.479 to 0.649) were not all greater than 0.5, convergent validity could still be accepted as the loadings were greater than 0.5 [ 86 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.t002

Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the AVE square root with the correlations between each pair of variables. As shown in Table 3 , each variable’s AVE square root is greater than its correlation coefficient with other variables, indicating that the constructs have sufficient discriminant validity [ 86 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.t003

4.1 Descriptive statistical analysis of the items

Table 4 presents each questionnaire statement’s means, standard deviations, and frequencies. At the bottom of each factor, the average mean scores, standard deviations, and average frequencies are provided. The average value of the object (M = 4.39, SD = 0.36) was the highest among all the influencing factors, with rules (M = 3.97, SD = 0.40) and community (M = 3.97, SD = 0.36) tied for second place followed by subject (M = 3.86, SD = 0.39) in third place and division of labor (M = 3.80, SD = 0.30) at fourth.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.t004

As shown in Table 4 , the average scores of each item ranged from 3.24 to 4.64, which is more than 65% of the total score, implying that students agreed to a large extent that these factors influenced their writing learning outcomes. The frequencies reveal that about 90% of participants (F = 29.6) agreed that BL contexts help them achieve goals to enhance writing performance (items 21–25). There were about three-fourths of participants agreed that the factors of subject (F = 24.6), rules (F = 24.6) and community (F = 25.4), such as motivation (item 1), interest (item 2), initiative (item 3), confidence (item 4), mood (item 5), deadline (item 6), anonymous policy (item 7), automatic evaluation criteria (item 8), grading standard (item 9), group rules (item 10), classmates and teachers (item 11–15), had positive impact on their EFL writing outcomes in the BL settings. While there were about three-fifths of participants (F = 22.6) supported that the division of labor factors, including teacher feedback (item 16), peer feedback (item 17), giving feedback (item 18), assignments (item 19) and discussions (item 20), can improve their EFL writing achievements in the BL environment.

Notably, six participants (F = 6) disagreed with the statement of item 5 (Writing on Pigai.org and discussing in WeChat groups let me feel relaxed), which is the item with the highest number of disagreements of all the statements. However, more than 60% of the participants (F≥20) agreed with items 1–4, indicating they feel motivated, interested, active, confident, and stressed in the blended writing course. In addition, item 19 (This course allows me to follow the course procedure and finish my assigned tasks easily) received the least amount of agreement (F = 12), suggesting that the assignments in the blended writing course were not easy for students to complete. Furthermore, all participants (F = 33) agreed with the statement of item 22 (This course helps me get higher grades in English writing), implying that the BL contributes to achieving the goal of getting higher writing grades.

4.2 Pearson correlation analysis

To further explore whether there are statistical correlations between EFL writing performance and each influencing factor and among these factors in a BL context, Pearson Correlation analysis was employed to examine the relationships between EFL writing performance and the mean scores of the influencing factors, including subject, rules, community, division of labor, and object. Table 5 illustrates the results of the Pearson Correlation analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.t005

As evident in Table 5 , participants’ EFL writing performance has the strongest correlation with subject factors (r = 0.837, p<0.01), followed by community (r = 0.691, p<0.01), object (r = 0.625, p<0.01) and rules (r = 0.608, p<0.01). The most minor correlation is with division of labor (r = 0.428, p<0.05). According to Cohen’s [ 71 ] criteria for correlation coefficients, when the absolute value of R is equal to or greater than 0.5, there is a large correlation between the two variables, a medium correlation effect between 0.3 and 0.5, and a small effect size for less than 0.3. Therefore, EFL writing performance is highly correlated with subject, community, object, and rules factors while moderately correlated with division of labor.

Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (r 2 ) can measure the amount of variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent variable [ 71 ]. The results indicate that the variability in students’ EFL writing achievements can be predicted by subject (r 2 = 0.76), community (r 2 = 0.48), object (r 2 = 0.39), rules (r 2 = 0.37), and division of labor (r 2 = 0.18), with a rate of 76%, 48%, 37%, 39%, and 18%, respectively.

In addition, as presented in Table 5 , the five influencing factors positively correlated with each other except for the relationship between rules and division of labor. The Pearson correlation coefficients among these factors are presented in Fig 2 . Based on Cohen’s [ 71 ] criteria for correlation coefficients, subject factors, in descending order, showed enormously significant positive correlations with the factors of object (r = 0.719, p<0.01), community (r = 0.612, p<0.01), rules (r = 0.595, p<0.01), and division of labor (r = 0.526, p<0.01), respectively. Similarly, the correlation effect between community and object factors (r = 0.578, p<0.01) was considerable in the BL contexts. There were medium correlations, in descending order, between rules and community (r = 0.448, p<0.01), rules and object (r = 0.447, p<0.01), community and division of labor (r = 0.366, p<0.01), as well as object and division of labor (r = 0.350, p<0.05). However, the results indicate no direct relationship between rules and division of labor in the BL environment, as the p-value was greater than 0.05, indicating an insignificant correlation.

This figure shows the Pearson correlation coefficients between the five elements, subject, object, rules, community, and division of labor, in the blended writing activity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.g002

5. Discussion

The current study used AT to explore the relationship between EFL writing performance and five influencing factors and the relationship between these factors in a BL context. From the results of this study, EFL students’ argumentative writing performance is significantly and positively correlated with the influencing factors, in descending order of correlation: subject, community, object, rules, and division of labor. There is a significant positive correlation between the five factors in the BL environment, except for no direct relationship between the rules and division of labor factors. Unlike previous research [ 6 , 39 , 87 , 88 ] indicating that BL positively impacts EFL writing performance, the results of this study suggest that BL positively influences writing performance through different factors to different extents.

The present study found the most significant correlation between the subject factor and EFL writing performance, implying that EFL students are the most crucial element in EFL writing improvement in BL contexts. Notably, students did not feel relaxed in the blended writing course and felt the assigned tasks were not easy to complete. However, they still felt motivated, interested, active, and confident in the blended writing course as well as believed that BL can improve their EFL writing performance, suggesting that BL can provide a more challenging learning environment where students feel motivated and confident to overcome difficulties and improve their writing skills. Students may be motivated by the varied learning environments and the learning practices provided by BL as a result of feeling interested and actively engaged in their learning. This finding corroborates Anggrawan’s [ 89 ] study, which indicates that students are motivated to learn as the learning chance is provided in a different way, such as online technology.

The findings of this study, regarding the positive correlations between the subject factor and the other four factors, further explain that students’ perceived motivation, interests, active engagement and self-confidence may be affected by the expanded community (such as communicating with teachers and peers at any time and any place), effective rules (such as deadline, anonymous policy, automatic evaluation criteria, grading standard, and group rules), and beneficial division of labor (such as teacher feedback, peer feedback, giving feedback, assignments, and discussions) in the BL contexts The findings align with those of previous research in a different field such as Zheng et al. [ 90 ] in PE, Nortvig et al. [ 91 ] in Art and Craft & Design, Miranda et al. [ 92 ] in engineering education, Kemaloglu and Bayyurt [ 93 ] in pre-service teacher education, and Bhatti et al. [ 94 ] in mathematics which presented the effectiveness in breaking physical barriers and the advantage of BL in various subjects learning. Students using BL enrolled in extension activities and had additional chances to practice their skills. Also, the findings in this research reflect that of Yulianti and Sulistiyawati [ 95 ], who found that students could develop the character of discipline, responsibility, and independence through the rules in the BL environment, and the development of these characteristics could help to form a pattern of behavior in their learning which in turn help to improve academic achievement.

This research’s findings seem to differ from the results of Ma [ 96 ], who pointed out that the more peer suggestions, the lower the scores tend to be. This difference may be because peer feedback in Ma’s (ibid) study was mainly critical comments regarding content and organization of writing. Still, the peer feedback in this study contained positive and negative comments, making it easier for students to accept feedback and improve the quality of their argumentative writing. Therefore, guiding students to simultaneously praise strengths and point out weaknesses when evaluating each other’s writing is essential. However, the findings of Liu et al. [ 97 ] supported the findings in the current study that the process of completing peer assessment tasks enabled students to compare their works with others critically, and the comments from peers motivated students to revise their compositions, which led to higher writing performance. It was also found that peer feedback contributed to the quality of writing content and enhanced writing competence in Visiaty’s [ 98 ] research.

However, this study concludes that the rules in BL are not correlated with the division of labor in BL settings. This contradicts the findings of David and Victor [ 99 ], suggesting that the rules correlated with and determined the division of labor. As few studies examine the relationship between rules and division of labor in a BL context, more investigation is needed to explain this result further.

5.1 Implications

The findings in this study may have some related practical implications for educators and stakeholders. In general, the factors in the BL environment positively impact EFL writing performance, which provides educators with guidance for designing and implementing BL courses. Educators can focus on the influence of subject, object, rules, community, and division of labor and create personalized and flexible learning environments to enhance EFL students’ writing skills.

Specifically, according to the results of this study, subject factors have the most significant impact on writing performance in BL contexts, so teachers should conduct regular surveys to gain a deeper understanding of student’s learning needs and goals. When necessary, teachers can distribute in-class questionnaires or conduct face-to-face conversations in the classroom and then adjust their teaching strategies according to the student’s situation.

Moreover, teachers can make full use of technological means and online resources. For example, teachers can use communication applications like WeChat in EFL writing courses to provide an expanded and active community. Teachers and students can discuss and share learning materials in such applications, which encourages students to engage in learning.

Meanwhile, teachers are expected to provide specific deadlines for completing the writing, grading rules, and anonymous evaluation policies in writing courses, all of which can contribute to improving outcomes. Instructors should guide students to give critical comments and praise in peer reviews, which can make students more receptive to peer feedback and improve the quality of their writing.

Furthermore, policymakers can develop an active BL environment by providing intelligent classroom facilities, Wi-Fi coverage on campus, online course resources, and personalized learning applications. They should set up a student learning analytic system to track and analyze students’ learning and give timely feedback and advice, contributing to the quality of EFL instruction.

Finally, policymakers can provide teachers with professional training and financial assistance in implementing BL, encouraging schools and teachers to adopt BL in different subjects.

5.2 Limitations and recommendations

Despite the contributions outlined above, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study, which should be addressed in future research. Firstly, a significant limitation of this study is that the investigation was conducted in a single university, resulting in limited sample coverage. A recommendation for future research is to survey diverse universities to achieve more comprehensive and representative data on the employment of BL in EFL writing instruction.

Secondly, the influence of different cultural, geographical, or educational backgrounds was not considered in this research, which may limit the generalizability of the study conclusions. Future research is suggested to investigate blended learning from different backgrounds to collect broader influencing factors that could promote EFL writing instruction.

Additionally, there was a limitation with the sample size. A larger sample size can improve the reliability of research results, while individual extreme values may impact the results of the study with a small sample size. Future research is recommended to apply BL among a larger sample size, and the findings might benefit from replication with a larger and more diverse sample.

Furthermore, as this study employed argumentative writing tests to assess EFL students’ writing performance, our findings may not generalize to other writing styles commonly taught in EFL courses. Future research could benefit from exploring a broader range of writing genres and provide a more comprehensive understanding of English writing instruction in a BL context.

Finally, another limitation is that the present study only collected quantitative data. Quantitative research focuses on group-level data analysis and ignores individual differences, limiting insights into individual experiences and behaviors. Further research is encouraged to incorporate qualitative methods, such as classroom observations and interviews, to provide a deeper understanding of BL’s impact on EFL students’ writing learning.

6. Conclusions

This research investigated the relationships between EFL writing performance and five AT-related influencing factors, as well as the relationships between these factors in a BL context, which integrates online learning and face-to-face instruction. The current study found that EFL students’ writing performance is positively and significantly correlated with factors in terms of subject, rules, community, division of labor, and object in a BL setting. Among these factors, the subject factor has the most significant impact on EFL writing performance, while the division of labor has the least in the BL context. Additionally, our findings suggest a significant positive relationship within each factor in the BL environment, except for no relationship between rules and division of labor.

The findings in the current study can offer a guide when implementing the BL approach into EFL writing curriculum plans. For instance, instructors can conduct regular surveys to understand students’ learning needs and goals better and adjust their teaching strategies accordingly. Teachers can also use applications such as WeChat to create an expanded community and encourage participation in learning. Moreover, clarifying deadlines for assignments, grading criteria, and anonymous policies on the Pigai.org platform, as well as guiding students to give critical comments and praise when conducting peer reviews, are recommended in EFL writing courses. In addition, policymakers can create a positive BL environment by providing smart classroom facilities, campus Wi-Fi coverage, and online resources. They are also suggested to set up a student learning analytic system to track students’ learning and provide timely feedback. Furthermore, policymakers can provide professional training and financial assistance to encourage educators to adopt BL in different subjects.

However, this research has limitations due to the small sample size and the reliance on quantitative data. Even though we conducted cluster sampling at a university with representative populations and carried out a rigorous instrument development process to ensure high-quality data-gathering instruments, which may enhance the accuracy of the data, increase the reliability of the findings, and mitigate these limitations, the relatively small sample size gives the impression that the results were only representing a portion of the population. Therefore, future studies may consider enlarging the sample size, involving qualitative methods, or expanding the scope of research on the impact of BL in other disciplines.

Supporting information

S1 checklist. inclusivity in global research..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.s001

S1 Appendix. The questionnaire of influencing factors in blended EFL writing course.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.s002

S2 Appendix. Writing test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.s003

S3 Appendix. The assessing criteria of writing performance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305668.s004

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 8. Ervin JL. Undergraduate education students’ experiences in online cooperative learning activities: An embedded single-case study. [ Doctoral dissertation , Liberty University ]. 2019.
• 31. Engeström Y. Learning by Expanding . An activity-theorical approach to developmental research . Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. 1987:338.
• 46. Vygotsky LS. Mind and Society : The Development of Higher Psychological Processes . Harvard University Press. 1978:101.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 59. Leont’ev AN. The problem of activity in psychology. Wertsch In J.(Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology , USA: ME. 1981.
• 69. Agresti A. Statistical methods for the social sciences . Pearson. 2018.
• 71. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences ( 2nd Edition ) . 1988.
• 74. Jacobs HL, Zinkgraf SA, Wormuth DR, Hartfiel VF, Hughey JB. Testing ESL composition : A practical approach . English Composition Program . Newbury House Publishers, Inc., Rowley, MA 01969. 1981.
• 78. Zeng Y. A study of the application of hybrid learning mode based on Pigai.org in the teaching of English writing in high schools. [Master dissertation, Shanghai International Studies University]. 2016.
• 81. Dornyei Z, Taguchi T. Questionnaire in Second Language Research : Construction , Administration , and Processing ( 2nd ed. ) . Routledge. 2010.
• 84. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research Methods in Education (Eighth edition ) . Abingdon, Oxon. 2018:532–533.
• 89. Anggrawan A. Percentage of Effect of Blended Learning Madel on Learning Outcome. 2019 Fourth International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC) . 2019:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIC47613.2019.8985741
• 95. Yulianti T, Sulistiyawati A. The Blended Learning for Student’s Character Building. International Conference on Progressive Education (ICOPE 2019) . 2020;422(Icope 2019):56–60. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200323.089

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review

The design of blended learning environments brings with it four key challenges: (1) incorporating flexibility, (2) stimulating interaction, (3) facilitating students' learning processes, and (4) fostering an affective learning climate. Seeing that attempts to resolve these challenges are fragmented across the literature, a systematic review was performed. Starting from 640 sources, 20 studies on the design of blended learning environments were selected through a staged procedure based on the guidelines of the PRISMA statement, using predefined selection criteria. For each study, the instructional activities for dealing with these four challenges were analyzed by two coders. The results show that few studies offer learners control over the realization of the blend. Social interaction is generally stimulated through introductory face-to-face meetings, while personalization and monitoring of students' learning progress is commonly organized through online instructional activities. Finally, little attention is paid to instructional activities that foster an affective learning climate.

Related Papers

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

ercan kiraz

Nuray Gedik

This study identified critical issues in the design of a blended learning environment by examining basic design considerations and implementation issues. Following a design-based research approach with the phenomenological tradition of qualitative research, the study investigated instructor experiences relating to the design, development, and implementation processes of a blended course. The results reveal that the design considerations centred on the pedagogical approach, course organization, materials preparation, interactions, and the instructor&apos;s and students &apos; roles. The affordances of the implementation included the arousal of the students &apos; interest and participation, flexibility, time conservation, the ability to track student progress, and the improvement of interaction, collaboration, and communication opportunities. The challenges were increased workload, course and time management, overlaps, and the creation of harmony between the face-to-face and online e...

Ali Alammary

Thouqan S Y Masadeh

This study explores the underlying theoretical principles that provide the basis for the design and implementation of blended learning classes. It discusses how online meetings and face-to-face sessions can be integrated in today's classrooms. Many studies and experiences have been reviewed in accordance with the preparation, implementation and evaluation of blended Learning classes. A summary of collected knowledge shows that blended learning has been favorable in today's educational environment. Most studies show that once infrastructure and technological tools are provided, many problems such as crowded classrooms and students' motivation toward learning will be settled via the utilization of Blended Learning. Moreover, the positive and comfortable Blended Learning environments will change the attitudes of students and teachers toward learning and teaching as time and place of lessons will not be a difficulty for both. However, achieving the benefits of Blended Learning models will not yield their fruits unless reviewing matters of training, planning and legislation are done.

The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning

Yoram Eshet

Based on recent research reports, the blended learning model, which combines face-to-face and online learning, is now the preferred model for online course design. Its superiority over online learning, which lacks face-to-face interaction, is evident from studies that examined both student achievement and satisfaction. Nevertheless, there is ambiguity in the literature and in the field regarding the proper implementation of blended learning and the optimal proportions between online and F2F components in various learning scenarios. The range of contradictory reports in recent literature on the potential of different blended learning models shows the need for more research on specific blended learning courses in order to establish proper standards for effective course design and implementation. The present evaluation study focuses on students’ perceptions of pedagogical and design issues related to a new model for blended learning that was used in a graduate-level course at the Open ...

Online Submission

Vicki Caravias

This paper presents a critical review and synthesis of research literature in higher education exploring teachers’ conceptions of blended learning and their approaches to both design and teaching. Definitions of blended learning and conceptual frameworks are considered first. Attention is given to Picciano’s Blending with Purpose Multimodal framework. This paper builds upon previous research on blended learning and conceptual framework by Picciano (A. Picciano, 2009) by exploring how objectives from Picciano’s framework af- fect teachers’ approaches to both design and teaching in face-to-face and online settings. Research results suggest that teachers use multiple approaches including face-to-face methods and online technologies that address the learning needs of a variety of students from different generations, personality types and learning styles.

This article describes a collaborative study of the blended learning approach, designed to pave the way for higher education students to integrate online and face-to-face learning environments in an ―Instructional Technology and Material Development‖ course at the University of Yildiz Technic in Turkey. The purpose of this study is to investigate the students ‘ perceptions of the blended learning environment and to trace the integration between online and face-to-face learning environments. For this purpose, 30 students were given statements on the redesigned course, which they rated on a 5-point Likert scale. To probe more deeply into their positive and negative responses, a focus group discussion was held to gather the students ‘ views. The findings are reveal that the majority of the students (90%) enjoyed being in the blended learning environment. However, improvement in methods of application and online study materials are needed. Additionally, other factors that may be salient...

International Journal of Management (IJM)

IAEME Publication

The article describes the application of instructional design techniques to form and increase the effectiveness of training courses. A key emphasis is placed on blended learning techniques, involving the separation of study time between learning using online technology and learning with a more traditional form of instruction involving a teacher. The basic principles of the organization of the educational process using instructional design are outlined; the nuances of this approach are considered taking into account the specifics of blended learning. The classification and descriptions of the main methods of blended learning are given. The nuances and features of each of the methods are considered The process is described, and the basic principles of creating curricula are described taking into account the specifics of the mixed form of training. The main approaches and methods for the formation of the training course are determined; the use of this technique in practice is described as an experiment.

Badrul H Khan

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Handbook of Distance Education

Charles R. Graham

Jurnal Pembelajaran Inovatif

Santi Maudiarti

José Bidarra

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Jase Moussa-inaty

Aynur Geçer

Sunnyvale: Brandon-Hall

Pekka Markkula

Cher Ping LIM

Science Park Research Organization & Counselling

Online Learning

Anthony Picciano

Stefanie Panke

kwantlen.ca

Aboelmagd Noureldin

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Patricia Schaber PhD , Aimee Whiteside , Lauren Marsh

Contemporary Issues In Education Research

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Meltem Eryılmaz

Ruth S. Contreras Espinosa

Minh Hien Vo , Anh Nguyet Diep

Ista Afandi

Prosiding Seminar Dies Natalis UKI ke-^0

Parlindungan Pardede

QUEST JOURNALS

The Anthropologist

Wing Cheung

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

Mugenyi Kintu

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Effect of crisis-induced online shift on student academic preferences: insights for education institutions to develop equitable and sustainable learning models.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. examining shifts in perspectives toward learning modes, 2.2. student preferences for active learning: learner engagement in teaching processes, 2.3. motivation effect on achievements, 2.4. promoting engagement and equity: examining strategies to foster participation and address barriers in online learning, 3. materials and methods, 3.1. initial sample, 3.2. analysis, 5. discussion.

• It examines the impact of online teaching strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic on student academic preferences and outcomes. This points to the need for education institutions to manage the transition to online/blended learning models in a sustainable way going forward.
• It assesses whether online teaching raised the need to change the character of academic institutions to ones that do not require physical attendance. This has implications for sustainable education management and planning by institutions.
• This study analyzes the effect of students’ socioeconomic status on their preference for online teaching. This highlights the need for education management strategies that promote equitable and inclusive access to educational opportunities, which is important for sustainable development.
• This study’s findings about student experiences and preferences regarding online vs. offline teaching provide insights that academic institutions can use to strategically manage their education delivery models in a way that sustains learner outcomes and satisfaction.

6. Research Limitations and Future Research

Author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Donitsa-Schmidt, S.; Ramot, R. Opportunities and challenges: Teacher education in Israel in the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Educ. Teach. 2020 , 46 , 586–595. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Almusharraf, N.; Khahro, S. Students satisfaction with online learning experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020 , 15 , 246–267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tan, D.Y.; Chen, J.-M. Bringing physical physics classroom online–challenges of online teaching in the new normal. Phys. Teach. 2021 , 59 , 410–413. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davidovitch, N.; Wadmany, R. E-Learning in Times of Crisis: An Incidental or Facilitative Event? In Handbook of Operations Research and Management Science in Higher Education ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 453–479. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert, B. Online Learning Revealing the Benefits and Challenges ; St. John Fisher: Rochester, NY, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Altbach, P.G.; De Wit, H. Are We at a Transformative Moment for Online Learning. University World News 2020. Available online: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200427120502132 (accessed on 2 May 2020).
• Dixson, M.D. Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement scale (OSE). Online Learn. 2015 , 19 , n4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cung, B.; Xu, D.; Eichhorn, S. Increasing Interpersonal Interactions in an Online Course: Does Increased Instructor Email Activity and Voluntary Meeting Time in a Physical Classroom Facilitate Student Learning? Online Learn. 2018 , 22 , 193–215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wright, M.C.; Bergom, I.; Bartholomew, T. Decreased class size, increased active learning? Intended and enacted teaching strategies in smaller classes. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2019 , 20 , 51–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meishar-Tal, H.; Levenberg, A. The effect of students’ active learning and lecturers’ behavior on students’ learning experience during COVID-19. In Chais Conference on Innovation in Learning Technologies ; Blau, A.C.I., Eshet-Alkalai, Y., Geri, N., Kalman, Y., Lauterman, T., Eds.; The Open University of Israel: Raanana, Israel, 2021; pp. 97–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, E.; Davidovitch, N. The Development of Online Learning in Israeli Higher Education. J. Educ. Learn. 2020 , 9 , 15–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parks-Stamm, E.J.; Zafonte, M.; Palenque, S.M. The effects of instructor participation and class size on student participation in an online class discussion forum. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2017 , 48 , 1250–1259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020 , 61 , 101860. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smart, K.L.; Cappel, J.J. Students’ perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2006 , 5 , 201–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Micari, M.; Pazos, P. Connecting to the professor: Impact of the student–faculty relationship in a highly challenging course. Coll. Teach. 2012 , 60 , 41–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bandiera, O.; Larcinese, V.; Rasul, I. Heterogeneous class size effects: New evidence from a panel of university students. Econ. J. 2010 , 120 , 1365–1398. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lepone, L.M.; Donahue, R.N.; Grenga, I.; Metenou, S.; Richards, J.; Heery, C.R.; Madan, R.A.; Gulley, J.L.; Schlom, J. Analyses of 123 peripheral human immune cell subsets: Defining differences with age and between healthy donors and cancer patients not detected in analysis of standard immune cell types. J. Circ. Biomark. 2016 , 5 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kahu, E.R.; Nelson, K. Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2018 , 37 , 58–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, C.; Kim, D.-G. Perception of instructor presence and its effects on learning experience in online classes. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2020 , 19 , 475–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Martin, F.; Bolliger, D.U. Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learn. 2018 , 22 , 205–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, C.V.; Cardaciotto, L. Is active learning like broccoli? Student perceptions of active learning in large lecture classes. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2011 , 11 , 53–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Selwyn, N. ‘Finding an appropriate fit for me’: Examining the (in) flexibilities of international distance learning. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 2011 , 30 , 367–383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wong, L.; Fong, M.W. Student attitudes to traditional and online methods of delivery. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2014 , 13 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sadeh, A.; Hirsh, E.E.M. The perceived achievement of students before and during the COVID-19 and their motivation concerning online education. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, ICERI 2021 Proceedings, Online, 8–9 November 2021; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2021; pp. 4966–4971. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nichols, M. Transforming Universities with Digital Distance Education: The Future of Formal Learning ; Routledge: London, UK, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidovitch, N.N.; Wadmany, R. Returning to the Academic Campus as the End of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Students Perceptions of Academic Teaching and Learning. J. Comp. Int. High. Educ. 2023 , 15 , 175–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davidovitch, N.; Eckhaus, E. Economics of time: Advantages of e-learning in proportion to the time utilized and the tradeoff between work and studies. Econ. Sociol. 2022 , 15 , 222–235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Price Banks, D.; Vergez, S.M. Online and In-person learning preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic among students attending the City University of New York. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 2022 , 23 , e00012-22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gaba, A.; Bhushan, B.; Rao, D.K. Factors influencing the preference of distance learners to study through online during COVID-19 pandemic. Asian J. Distance Educ. 2021 , 16 , 194–206. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woo, A.; Pek, L.S.; Nawi, H.S.A. Digital Educational Divide among Low Socioeconomy Income Group: A Conceptual Model. St. Theresa J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2021 , 7 , 14–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silander, D. The European Commission on Agenda 2030 ; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirilova, G.I.; Windarti, A. Impact of Corona Virus Outbreak Towards Teaching and Learning Activities in Indonesia. J. Sos. Dan Budaya Syar-I 2020 , 7 , 269–282. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mesch, G.S.; Talmud, I. Ethnic differences in Internet access: The role of occupation and exposure. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2011 , 14 , 445–471. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DiMaggio, P.; Hargittai, E. From the ‘digital divide’to ‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. In Princeton: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies ; Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2001; Volume 4, pp. 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frankiewicz, B.; Chamorro-Premuzic, T. Digital transformation is about talent, not technology. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2020 , 6 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schejter, A.; Beh-Harush, O.; Tirosh, N. Nothing is ever truly new. In Digital Inclusion: An International Comparative Analysis ; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2018; pp. 147–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warschauer, M.; Knobel, M.; Stone, L. Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educ. Policy 2004 , 18 , 562–588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wahab, A. Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of COVID-19 pandemic. High. Educ. Stud. 2020 , 10 , 16–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan, J.J.; Kraus, M.W.; Carpenter, N.C.; Adler, N.E. The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 2020 , 146 , 970–1020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davidovitch, N.; Eckhaus, E. The lecturer as supervisor: The effect of assessing the abilities of candidates for academic supervision on supervision outcomes. Laplage Rev. 2021 , 7 , 133–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eckhaus, E. Happiness in Fashion. In Advances in Human Factors, Business Management and Society. AHFE 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ; Kantola, J., Nazir, S., Barath, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 783, pp. 15–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rashidi, K.; Jalali, A.; Salari, N.; Abbasi, P. Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Elder Care Needs in Iran. Clin. Interv. Aging 2020 , 15 , 275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Truszczynski, N.; Singh, A.A.; Hansen, N. The discrimination experiences and coping responses of non-binary and trans people. J. Homosex. 2020 , 69 , 741–755. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Davidovitch, N.; Eckhaus, E. Effect of Crisis-Induced Online Shift on Student Academic Preferences: Insights for Education Institutions to Develop Equitable and Sustainable Learning Models. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125248

Davidovitch N, Eckhaus E. Effect of Crisis-Induced Online Shift on Student Academic Preferences: Insights for Education Institutions to Develop Equitable and Sustainable Learning Models. Sustainability . 2024; 16(12):5248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125248

Davidovitch, Nitza, and Eyal Eckhaus. 2024. "Effect of Crisis-Induced Online Shift on Student Academic Preferences: Insights for Education Institutions to Develop Equitable and Sustainable Learning Models" Sustainability 16, no. 12: 5248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125248

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Instructional Technology
• Blended Learning

The Effects of Using Blended Learning in Teaching and Learning English: A Review of Literature

• December 2020
• International Journal Of Eurasia Social Sciences 18(4):173-179
• 18(4):173-179

• Takhar University

• Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Netty Huzniati Andas
• Karman Karman
• Nyoman Indah Artini
• T Arul Kavya

• Md. Jamil Hossain

• Maciej Szlagor

• Delta Apriyani
• Tri Dewi Setiawati

• Ameera Moosa Ali Hussein
• Alajab Mohammed Alajab Ismail
• Jessica DeMolder
• David Wiseman
• Charles Graham
• Camellia Hill

• Magdaline Anak Muuk
• Hanan Tawil

• C. Banditvilai
• Kwang Hee Hong
• Keiko K. Samimy
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Developing outdoor campus space for teaching and learning: a scoping review of the literature

• Published: 17 June 2024

Cite this article

• Tracey Birdwell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7397-2407 1 ,
• Merve Basdogan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6989-9590 2 &
• Tripp Harris   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7343-2598 3  

Explore all metrics

Educators have used outdoor space to support learning throughout history. Over the past several years, the COVID-19 pandemic has compelled institutions of higher education to make innovations toward planning and constructing outdoor learning spaces on campus as a necessary measure for promoting student health and safety. This scoping literature review explores the landscape of research on use of campus space developed for outdoor learning in higher education around the world. In this review, we synthesize relevant research based on descriptive characteristics, research interests, supporting theories and frameworks, technology use, and learning outcomes. Our search uncovered a range of developed (i.e., constructed) outdoor space design guidelines, outdoor learning activities, and theoretical frameworks that expand our understanding of outdoor spatial use on college and university campuses. This scoping review offers qualitative and descriptive quantitative findings and offers practical implications for higher education stakeholders as they explore possibilities for developing outdoor space on their campuses for teaching and learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Cross disciplinary teaching: A pedagogical model to support teachers in the development and implementation of outdoor learning opportunities

Research and Documentation of Outdoor-Based Teaching in Teacher Education—The EOT Project

Innovative outdoor fieldwork pedagogies in the higher education sector: Optimising the use of technology

Addas, A., Maghrabi, A., & Goldblatt, R. (2021). Public open spaces evaluation using importance-performance analysis (IPA) in Saudi Universities: The case of King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. Sustainability, 13 (2), 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020915

Article   Google Scholar  

Akhir, N. M., Sakip, S. R. M., Abbas, M. Y., Othman, N., & Halim, D. K. (2022). Visual landscape quality relationship towards students’ well-being. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 7 (19), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v7i19.3258

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology . Stanford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Button, C. E., Ghezzi, S. E., Godfrey, P., Huminski, S. E., Minor, J., & Silka, L. (2022). Transforming barriers into opportunities: teaching environment and sustainability service-learning courses during the 2020 covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 26 (1), 179.

Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place . Architectural Press.

Cheang, C. C., So, W. M. W., Zhan, Y., & Tsoi, K. H. (2017). Education for sustainability using a campus eco-garden as a learning environment. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2015-0174

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12 (3), 297–298.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is Philosophy? , (G. Burchell & H. Tomlinson, Trans.) London: Verso.

El-Darwish, I. I. (2022). Enhancing outdoor campus design by utilizing space syntax theory for social interaction locations. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 13 (1), 101524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.06.010

Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Models of learning space: Integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education, 4 (2), 149–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3056

Fang, B. B., Lu, F. J., Gill, D. L., Liu, S. H., Chyi, T., & Chen, B. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of outdoor education programs on adolescents’ self-efficacy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 128 (5), 1932.

Firth, R., Stoltenberg, E., & Jennings, T. (2016). Using an outdoor learning space to teach sustainability and material processes in HE product design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35 (3), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12109

Fortes, S., Hidalgo-Triana, N., Sánchez-la-Chica, J. M., García-Ceballos, M. L., Cantizani-Estepa, J., Pérez-Latorre, A. V., & García-Marín, A. (2021). Smart tree: An architectural, greening and ICT multidisciplinary approach to smart campus environments. Sensors, 21 (21), 7202. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21217202

Gibson, J. J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception . Psychology Press Classic Editions.

Gull, C., Bogunovich, J., Goldstein, S. L., & Rosengarten, T. (2019). Definitions of loose parts in early childhood outdoor classrooms: a scoping review. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6 (3), 37–52.

Hami, A., & Abdi, B. (2021). Students’ landscaping preferences for open spaces for their campus environment. Indoor and Built Environment, 30 (1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X19887207

Hawxwell, L., O’Shaughnessy, M., Russell, C., & Shortt, D. (2019). ‘Do you need a kayak to learn outside?’: A literature review into learning outside the classroom. Education 3–13, 47 (3), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1444074

Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1989). The social logic of space . Cambridge University Press.

Ibes, D. C., & Forestell, C. A. (2020). The role of campus greenspace and meditation on college students’ mood disturbance. Journal of American College Health . https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1726926

Jasmin, A. (2018, August 29). Unplugged: Tulane introduces new outdoor classroom. https://news.tulane.edu/news/unplugged-tulane-introduces-new-outdoor-classroom

Kadir, N. A., Rahman, N. A., & Ibrahim, N. H. (2020). Integrating the typographic landscape in creating interactive spaces for a holistic learning environment. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 5 (13), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v5i13.2107

Latifi, A. (2019, June 11). Outdoor learning pods a hit with UOW students. https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/6210073/outdoor-learning-pods-a-hit-with-uow-students/

Leijon, M., Nordmo, I., Tieva, Å., & Troelsen, R. (2022). Formal learning spaces in higher education–a systematic review. Teaching in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2066469

Lesan, M. (2020). Fundamentals of university campus design based on behavioral studies case study: Noshirvani University of technology. Bagh-e Nazar, 17 (84), 45–56.

Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form . MIT Press.

Mann, J., Gray, T., Truong, S., Sahlberg, P., Bentsen, P., Passy, R., ... & Cowper, R. (2021). A systematic review protocol to identify the key benefits and efficacy of nature-based learning in outdoor educational settings. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (3), 1199.

Meighan, H. L., & Rubenstein, E. D. (2018). Outdoor learning into schools: A synthesis of literature. Career and Technical Education Research, 43 (2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter43.2.161

Öztürk, H. (2020). Design of unique urban furniture in outdoor campus areas. Online Journal of Art and Design, 8 (4), 68–83.

Project for Public Spaces (PPS) (2000). What makes a great place. Project for Public Places, http://www.pps.org

Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23 (3), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . Basic Books.

Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being (p. 2011). Free Press.

Shacham, S. (2010). A shortened version of the profile of mood states. Journal of Personality Assessment . https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4703_14

Skladany M. (2021, September 10). Making the most of teaching outdoors during the pandemic (opinion). Inside Higher Ed . https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/09/10/making-most-teaching-outdoors-during-pandemic-opinion

Stymne, J. (2020). Outdoor learning with mobile technology: A systematic review. IADIS International Journal on WWW/Internet, 18 (1), 76–106.

Tourinho, A. C. C., Barbosa, S. A., Göçer, Ö., & Alberto, K. C. (2021). Post-occupancy evaluation of outdoor spaces on the campus of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Brazil. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 15 (3), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-09-2020-0204

Tuğlu Karslı, U. (2008). Mobilya Tasarımında Ekolojik Yaklaşımlar. Tasarım , 181 , 118–120.

United Nations Development Programme (2015).

Uyaroglu, D. (2021). A performance evaluation tool for inclusiveness in university campus outdoor spaces. Megaron . https://doi.org/10.14744/MEGARON.2021.35336

van Kraalingen, I. (2021). A systematized review of the use of mobile technology in outdoor learning. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning . https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2021.1984963

Waldron, J. W., Locock, A. J., & Pujadas-Botey, A. (2016). Building an outdoor classroom for field geology: The geoscience garden. Journal of Geoscience Education, 64 (3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.5408/15-133.1

Wonowidjoyo, M. (2022). Rethinking art education through integrating outdoor learning practices as sites of memory. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning . https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2022.2054838

Xue, J., Liu, W., & Liu, K. (2021). Influence of thermal environment on attendance and adaptive behaviors in outdoor spaces: A study in a cold-climate university campus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (11), 6139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18116139

Download references

No funding was received to support this study or the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Instructional Excellence, Purdue University, Indianapolis, USA

Tracey Birdwell

Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA

Merve Basdogan

Mosaic Initiative, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, USA

Tripp Harris

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tripp Harris .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There is no financial or non-financial interest or benefit that might arise from the direct or indirect applications of this research. None of the authors have a conflict of interest to report.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Birdwell, T., Basdogan, M. & Harris, T. Developing outdoor campus space for teaching and learning: a scoping review of the literature. Learning Environ Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-024-09504-1

Download citation

Received : 15 February 2023

Accepted : 04 June 2024

Published : 17 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-024-09504-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Higher education
• Outdoor classroom
• Outdoor learning
• Outdoor learning spaces
• Outdoor teaching
• Scoping literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research