Significant Predictors for Effectiveness of Blended Learning In a Language Course
A wide variety of technologies combined with traditional classroom methods can make learning easier in the digital age. This paper studied undergraduate students’ satisfaction and learning performance after they had studied in a blended setting and investigated if variables of learner characteristics and course features would be predictors for effectiveness in a blended course. Data were gained from 149 students enrolled in a basic English course at a private university in Thailand, using a 5-rating scale questionnaire. The results of the study demonstrated that students were satisfied with instructor, interactivity and course design, and the mean score of performance was higher than the criterion. It was found that attitudes toward blended learning, face-to-face support and digital literacy were three variables predicting learning performance while only two variables including face-to-face support and attitudes toward blended learning were two predicting variables of satisfaction with the course. However, workload management and online learning tools quality were not predictors of learning performance and satisfaction with the course. When designing future blended courses, instructors should pay more attention to face-to-face support, attitudes toward blended learning and digital literacy since these factors may have an impact on the course success.
Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application. New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers & Education, 5(1), 474-483.
DeNeui, D. (2008). Asynchronous learning networks and student outcomes: The utility of online learning components in hybrid courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33 (4), 256-259.
Deschacht, N., & Goeman, K. (2015). The effect of blended learning on course persistence and performance of adult learners: A difference-in-differences analysis. Computers & Education, 87 (83-89).
Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers & Education, 54(2), 350-359.
Eom, S.B., Ashill, N., & Wen, H.J. (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.
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York, NY: Wiley Computer Publishing.
Graff, M. (2003). Learning from web-based instructional systems and cognitive style. British Journal of Education Technology, 34(4), 407–418.
Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 449-478.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computer & Education, 54, 722-732.
Kintu, M. J., & Zhu, C. (2016). Student characteristics and learning outcomes in a blended learning environment intervention in a Ugandan university. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14 (3), 181- 195.
Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(7), 1-20.
Klecker, B. (2007). The Impact of formative feedback on student learning in an online classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34 (3), 161-165.
Kvavik, R. B. (2005). Convenience, Communications, and Control: How Students Use Technology. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (pp. 7.1-7.20) EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
Krawiec, S. Salter, D., & Kay, E. (2005). A Hybrid bacteriology course: The professor’s design and expectations; the students’ performance and assessment. Microbiology Education, 6, 8-13.
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.
Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2004). E-learning compared with the face to face: Differences in the academic achievement of postgraduate business students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(3), 316-336.
Lin, Q. (2008). Student satisfactions in four mixed courses in elementary teacher education program. Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 53-59.
Lin, B., & Vassar, J. A. (2009). Determinants for success in online learning communities. International Journal of Web-based Communities, 5(3), 340-350.
McFarlin, B.K. (2008). Hybrid lecture-online format increases student grades in undergraduate exercise physiology course at a large urban university. Advances in Physiology Education, 32, 86-91.
Motteram, G. (2006). Blended education and the transformation of teachers: A long-term case study in postgraduate UK higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 17-30.
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.
Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Students perceptions and achievement in a university blended leanring strategic initiative. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38-46.
Orhan, F. (2008). Redesigning a course for blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9 (1), 54-66.
Oblinger, J.L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net generation (pp.7-1-7.20).Washington, D.C: Educause.
Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. New York, USA: Sloan-C.
Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 22 (2): 72-89.
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.
Siemens, G. (2004). A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/articles/connectivism.htm
Siemens, G. (2005, January). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning. Retrieved from
Song, J., Park, S., & Park, M. (2017). Digital literacy of language learners in two different contexts. JALT CALL Journal, 13(2), 77-96.
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.
Starkie, E.G. (2007). The Practicum: An Example of Changes in the Teaching and Learning Process in the European Higher Education Space. Odgojne znanosti, 9(1), 119-135.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. Y. (2016). Digital literacy: A prerequisite for effective learning in a blended learning environment? The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 4(1), 54-65.
Thorne K. (2003). Blended Learning: How to integrate online and traditional learning. London: Kogan Page.
Woltering, V., Herrler, A., Spitzer, K. & Spreckelsen, C. (2009). Blended learning positively affects students’ satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: Results of a mixed-method evaluation. Advances in Health Science Education, 14(5), 725-738.
Copyright (c) 2018 Saovapa Wichadee
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).