Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reframing the principle of specialisation in legitimation code theory: A blended learning perspective

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study argues that in developing a robust framework for students in a blended learning environment, Structural Alignment (SA) becomes the third principle of specialisation in addition to Epistemic Relation (ER) and Social Relation (SR). We provide an extended code: (ER+/−, SR+/−, SA+/−) that present strong classification and framing to the architecture of blended learning while defining the impact of structural alignment in the trajectory. The subjects in this study were 500 undergraduate students drawn from three faculties in a university. Using a Structural Equation Model (SEM), we show that SR, ER and SA redefine the principle of specialisation in Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) which is necessary in enhancing blended learning. We conclude that whereas epistemic and social relations define the knower and knowledge code, structural alignment explains the infrastructure and policy framework that supports knowledge acquisition in a blended learning environment.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akyol, Z. (2014). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive, and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Available at: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf. Accessed 23 January 2016

  • Ally, M. (2011). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), (2011) The theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton: AU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, K. D. (1994). Methods of social research. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. (2006). Vocational knowledge and vocational pedagogy. In M. Young & J. Gamble (Eds.), Knowledge, curriculum and qualifications for south African further education (pp. 104–124). Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: an essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chmiliar, L. (2010). Case study surveys. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 761–765). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, F., & Maton, F. (2010). Disciplinarity: functional linguistic and sociological perspectives. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. (2001). Stimulating collaboration and discussion in online learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(2), 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R., & Makowsky, M. (1993). Dreyfus’s empire: Emile Durkheim and George Sorel. In R. Collins & M. Makowsky (Eds.), The discovery of society (pp. 101–116). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Educational technology – mapping the terrain with Bernstein as cartographer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 523–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De George-Walker, L., & Keeffe, M. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: a case study of blended learning design. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2013). Performative ontologies: Sociomaterial approaches to researching adult education and lifelong learning. European journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5&6), 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, J. (2006). Theory and practice in the vocational curriculum. In M. Young & J. Gamble (Eds.), Knowledge, curriculum and qualifications for south African further education. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: two case studies. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modelling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: definition, current trends and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. J. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grix, J. (2002). Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research. Politics, 22(3), 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (1st ed.). London: Sage Publications.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, C. H., & Swan, K. (2007). Evaluating online conversation in an asynchronous learning environment: an application of Grice's cooperative principle. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, S., & Maton, K. (2011). Theorising knowledge practices: a missing piece of the educational technology puzzle. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 191–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, N. (2006). E-college wales, a case study of blended learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning. Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 182–193). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N. (2013). WarpPLS 4.0 user manual. Texas: ScriptWarp Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakhal, S., Khechine, H., & Pascot, D. (2013). Student behavioural intentions to use desktop video conferencing in a distance course: integration of autonomy to the UTAUT model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(2), 93–121.

  • Lee, S. M., & Hong, S. (2002). An enterprise-wide knowledge management system infrastructure. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(1), 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, W. S., & Wang, C. H. (2012). Antecedences to continued intentions of adopting e-learning system in blended learning instruction: a contingency framework based on models of information system success and task-technology fit. Computers & Education, 58(1), 88–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, J. (2008). Blended learning and online tutoring (2nd ed.). Hampshire: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maton, K. (2004). The wrong kind of knower: education, expansion and the epistemic device. In J. Muller, B. Davies, & A. Morais (Eds.), Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein. London: Routlegde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers. Towards a realist sociology of education. London: Routlegde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maton, K., & Moore, R. (2010a). Social realism, knowledge and the sociology of education: coalitions of the mind. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maton, K., & Moore, R. (2010b). Analysing knowledge claims and practices: languages of legitimation. In K. Maton & R. Moore (Eds.), Social realism, knowledge and the sociology of education: coalitions of the mind. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. (2010). Knowledge structures and the canon: a preference for judgements. In K. Maton & R. Moore (Eds.), Social realism, knowledge and the sociology of education (pp. 131–153). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, P., Dziuban, P., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: a dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, J. (2007). On splitting hairs: hierarchy, knowledge and the school curriculum. In F. Christie & J. Martin (Eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy (pp. 65–86). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, J. (2009). Forms of knowledge and curriculum coherence. Journal of Education and Work, 22(3), 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec, M., & Otte, G. (2010). An administrator’s guide to the whys and hows of blended learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. London: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: an empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1285–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rata, E. (2012). The politics of knowledge in education. British Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remesal, A., & Colomina, R. (2013). Social presence and online collaborative small group work: a socio constructivist account. Computers & Education, 60(1), 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selim, H. M. (2007). E-learning critical success factors: an exploratory investigation of student perceptions. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 2(2), 157–182.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somekh, B. (2000). New technology and learning: policy and practice in the UK, 1980-2010. Education and Information Technologies, 5(1), 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P., Ray, J. T., Glenn, F., Yueh-Yang, C., & Dowming, Y. (2007). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. A., & Newton, D. (2012). Beyond blended learning: a case study of institutional change at an Australian regional university. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 54–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative in the social and Behavioural sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modelling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelahan, L. (2007). How competency-based training locks the working class out of powerful knowledge: a modified Bernteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 637–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. (2006). Conceptualising vocational knowledge: some theoretical considerations. In M. Young & J. Gamble (Eds.), Knowledge, curriculum and qualifications for south African further education (pp. 104–124). Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ghana Technology University College, PMB 100, Accra North, Tesano, Ghana

    Yaw Owusu-Agyeman

  2. Department of Economics, Ghana Technology University College, PMB 100, Accra, North Tesano, Ghana

    Otu Larbi-Siaw

Authors
  1. Yaw Owusu-Agyeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Otu Larbi-Siaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaw Owusu-Agyeman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Owusu-Agyeman, Y., Larbi-Siaw, O. Reframing the principle of specialisation in legitimation code theory: A blended learning perspective. Educ Inf Technol 22, 2583–2603 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9563-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9563-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation