Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond Knowledge: Multiple Faceted Efficacious Impacts of Blended Learning Affordance on EFL Learners

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Critical Reflections on ICT and Education

Part of the book series: Educational Communications and Technology Yearbook ((ECTY))

  • 92 Accesses

Abstract

This research aims at exploring evidence of multiple-faceted but salient effects that the affordance of blended learning (BL) impacts learning experiences of English as a foreign language (EFL) students. Methodological triangulation was employed in this study. The pretest–posttest results were compared, survey was conducted, and study logs were analyzed from the learning management system (Moodle platform) of the experiment. The total number of 166 participants at a university in Vietnam were involved in the study. The findings show that besides knowledge enhancement, learners being exposed to an appropriate instructional design of BL environment derive more benefits, including improvement of substantial learning skills and positive changes in attitude toward their learning. Recommendations to improve professional development programs in language teacher education with BL and EFL teaching are also addressed. It provides wider implications for researchers, language teacher educators, and practitioners in the contexts that share similar teaching culture with Vietnam.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Al-Maroof, R., Al-Qaysi, N., Salloum, S. A., & Al-Emran, M. (2022). Blended learning acceptance: A systematic review of information systems models. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(3), 891–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzal, Chen, S., & Sit, H. H. W. (2022). An investigation on the teachers’ perceptions on “ICT integration”: Evidence from Indonesian EFL classrooms. In A. W. B. Tso, S. K. K. Ng, L. Law, & T. S. Bai (Eds.), Annual conference of Hong Kong association for educational, communications and technology (pp. 295–305). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9217-9_18.

  • Atherton, M., Shah, M., Vazquez, J., Griffiths, Z., Jackson, B., & Burgess, C. (2017). Using learning analytics to assess student engagement and academic outcomes in open access enabling programmes. Open Learning, 32(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2017.1309646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2020). Australian curriculum F-10: Literacy. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/literacy/.

  • Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi, X., & Shi, X. (2019). On the effects of computer-assisted teaching on learning results based on blended learning method. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(01), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i01.9458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. Bmj, 314(7080), 572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J., Graham, C. R., Cross, J., & Moore, M. G. (2012). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownstein, B., Brownstein, D., & Gerlowski, D. A. (2008). Web-based versus face-to-face MBA classes: A comparative assessment study. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 5(11).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2002). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for windows: A guide for social scientists. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carle, A. C. (2009). Evaluating college students’ evaluations of a professor’s teaching effectiveness across time and instruction mode (online vs. face-to-face) using a multilevel growth modeling approach. Computers & Education, 53(2), 429–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., & Jones, K. T. (2007). Blended learning vs. traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA accounting course. Journal of Educators Online, 4(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A Panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, M., & Shepherd, M. (2001). Distance learning in accounting: A comparison between a distance and a traditional graduate accounting class. The Journal, 28(9), 58–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaol, F. L., & Hutagalung, F. (2020). The trends of blended learning in South East Asia. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 659–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10140-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. W. (2008). A comparison of student outcomes and student satisfaction in three MBA human resource management classes based on traditional versus online learning. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 5(8).

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R. (2019). Current research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4 ed., pp. 173–188). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandzol, J. R. (2004). Teaching MBA statistics online: A pedagogically sound process approach. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 237–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.004.

  • Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2005). Education goes digital: The evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, M. M., & Nat, M. (2019). Blended learning motivation model for instructors in higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonasson, S. (1988). Evaluation of the point intercept method for the estimation of plant biomass. Oikos, 101–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirtman, L. (2009). Online versus in-class courses: An examination of differences in learning outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumakis, M., Graham, C., & Dziuban, C. (2009). The Sloan-C pillars and boundary objects as a framework for evaluating blended learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, W. (2012). An eclectic method of college English teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, 166–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, K. R., Swart, W. W., & Paul, R. C. (2019). Continual improvement of online and blended teaching using relative proximity theory. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 17(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F., Polly, D., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2020). Bichronous online learning: Blending asynchronous and synchronous online learning. In EDUCAUSE review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/9/bichronous-online-learning-blending-asynchronous-and-synchronous-online-learning.

  • Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G., & Diehl, W. C. (2018). Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, P. D., & Cavanagh, T. B. (2014). Scaling blended learning evaluation beyond the university. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 34–51). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, G. H. (2017). Teachers’ roles in EFL blended language learning at tertiary level in Vietnam: Their views, their practice. Doctoral dissertation, University of Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, V. T. (2017). Factors that affect students’ reticence in class. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education in Muslim Society (ICEMS 2017), 11, 179–184. https://doi.org/10.2991/icems-17.2018.35.

  • O’Toole, J. M., & Absalom, D. J. (2003). The impact of blended learning on student outcomes: Is there room on the horse for two? Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C. D., & Graham, C. R. (2013). Blended learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 2). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponzurick, T. G., France, K. R., & Logar, C. M. (2000). Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance education. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(3), 180–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, A., Rabbitt, B., & Kennedy, K. (2014). iNACOL blended learning teacher competency framework. iNACOL. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561318.pdf.

  • Pugliese, L. (2012). A post-LMS world. Educause Review Online, 47(1), 50–51. https://er.educause.edu/-/media/files/article-downloads/erm1216.pdf.

  • Reasons, S. G., Valadares, K., & Slavkin, M. (2005). Questioning the hybrid model: Student outcomes in different course formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(1), 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, M. C. (2009). Instructional design principles for 21st century learning skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1464–1468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: a review of UK literature and practice. The higher education academy, 1–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K–12 blended learning. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535181.pdf.

  • Staker, H., Chan, E., Clayton, M., Hernandez, A., Horn, M. B., & Mackey, K. (2011). The rise of K–12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535181.pdf.

  • Taylor, R. (1990). Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: A basic review. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, 6(1), 35–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terry, N., Owens, J., & Macy, A. (2001). Student performance in the virtual versus traditional classroom. Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 2(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online & traditional learning. Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vignare, K. (2007). Review of literature, blended learning: Using ALN to change the classroom–will it work. Blended learning: Research perspectives, 37–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K., & Korn, J. H. (2007). Attention during lectures: Beyond ten minutes. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 85–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, Y., & Chen, H. (2021). Developments and emerging trends of blended learning: A document co-citation analysis (2003–2020). International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(24), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i24.25971

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, College of Human and Social Futures, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia

    Tuyen Van Nguyen, Tuyen Van Nguyen, Helena Sit & Shen Chen

Authors
  1. Tuyen Van Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helena Sit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuyen Van Nguyen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Anna Wing Bo TSO

  2. Communication, Public Relations and Journalism Programme, HKU SPACE Po Leung Kuk Stanley Ho Community College, Hong Kong, China

    Wendy Wing Lam CHAN

  3. Ming-Ai (London) Institute, London, UK

    Steven Kwan Keung NG

  4. Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Tiffany Shurui BAI

  5. Division of Languages and Communication, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

    Noble Po Kan LO

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Van Nguyen, T., Sit, H., Chen, S. (2023). Beyond Knowledge: Multiple Faceted Efficacious Impacts of Blended Learning Affordance on EFL Learners. In: TSO, A.W.B., CHAN, W.W.L., NG, S.K.K., BAI, T.S., LO, N.P.K. (eds) Critical Reflections on ICT and Education. Educational Communications and Technology Yearbook. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7559-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7559-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-7558-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-7559-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation