Skip to main content

Blended learning at pre-service teacher education in Turkey: A systematic review

Abstract

The literature shows an increase in blended learning implementations (N = 74) at faculties of education in Turkey whereas pre-service and in-service teachers’ ICT competencies have been identified as one of the areas where they are in need of professional development. This systematic review was conducted to find out the impact of blended learning on academic achievement and attitudes at teacher education programs in Turkey. 21 articles and 10 theses complying with all pre-determined criteria (i.e., studies having quantitative research design or at least a quantitative aspect conducted at pre-service teacher education programs) included within the scope of this review. With regard to academic achievement, it was synthesized that majority of the studies confirmed its positive impact on attaining course outcomes. Likewise, blended learning environment was revealed to contribute pre-service teachers to develop positive attitudes towards the courses. It was also concluded that face-to-face aspect of the courses was favoured considerably as it enhanced social interaction between peers and teachers. Other benefits of blended learning were listed as providing various materials, receiving prompt feedback, and tracking progress. Slow internet access, connection failure and anxiety in some pre-service teachers on using ICT were reported as obstacles. Regarding the positive results of blended learning and the significance of ICT integration, pre-service teacher education curricula are suggested to be reconstructed by infusing ICT into entire program through blended learning rather than delivering isolated ICT courses which may thus serve for prospective teachers as catalysts to integrate the use of ICT in their own teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Admiraal, W., Vugt, F., Kranenburg, F., Koster, B., Smit, B., Weijers, S., & Lockhorst, D. (2017). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology into K-12 instruction: Evaluation of a technology-infused approach. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2006). A study on students’ views on blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 7(3), 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2008). A study of student’s perceptions in a blended learning environment based on different learning styles. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Akyüz, H. I., & Kurt, M. (2010). Effect of teacher’s coaching in online discussion forums on students’ perceived self-efficacy for the educational software development. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 633–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aslan, A., & Zhu, C. (2017). Investigating variables predicting Turkish pre-service teachers’ integration of ICT into teaching practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 552–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aydemir, S. (2012). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası ve bilimsel araştırmayı anlamaları üzerine etkisi [The effect of blended learning on pre-service science teachers’ views about nature of science and scientific inquiry] (Unpublished Master Dissertation). Fırat University, Elazığ.

  7. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT impact report: A review of studies of ICT impact on school in Europe. European Schoolnet. Retrieved from http://colccti.colfinder.org/sites/default/files/ict_impact_report_0.pdf.

  8. Balcı, M., & Soran, H. (2009). Students' opinions on blended learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 10(1), 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barbour, M. K., Siko, J., Gross, E., & Waddell, K. (2013). Virtually unprepared: Examining the preparation of K-12 online teachers. In R. Hartshorne, T. L. Heafner, & T. M. Petty (Eds.), Teacher Education Programs and Online Learning Tools: Innovations in Teacher Preparation (pp. 60–81). PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Betz, K. M., & Mitchell, J. W. (1996). Educational technology in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 4(3), 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Biçen, H., Özdamlı, F., & Uzunboylu, H. (2012). Online and blended learning approach on instructional media development courses in teacher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 529–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Blamire, R., Cassells, D., & Walsh, G. (2017). ITELab monitoring report 1. Brussels: European Schoolnet Retrieved from http://itelab.eun.org/documents/452109/469412/ITE+Monitoring+Report/1ff011b8-6613-4fd0-b5b8-2e188209e5a8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Pickard, P. (2003). Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media, 28, 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bruner, J. (1999). Folk Pedagogies, in Foundations of New Reform. In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and Pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cabı, E., & Yalın, H. I. (2011). Öz düzenlemeye dayalı karma öğrenimin öğrenci motivasyonuna etkisi [The effect of blended learning based on self-regulation on students’ motivation]. Educational Technology: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 125–141.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Caner, M. (2010). A blended learning model for teaching practice course. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 11(3), 78–97.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Çelik, B. (2001). Web-based history education in Turkey. Journal of the Association for History and Computing, 4(3) Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jahc;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3310410.0004.302.

  18. Çetin, İ. D. (2006). Students' and instructors' perceptions of a blended course: A case study. (Master of Science Master), Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

  19. Çiftçi, S., Taşkaya, S. M., & Alemdar, M. (2013). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin Fatih projesine ilişkin görüşleri [The Opinions of Classroom Teachers about Fatih Project]. Elementary Education Online, 12(1), 227–240.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Çolakoğlu, Ö. M. (2009). ARCS motivasyon modeli kullanılarak oluşturulan ders modüllerinin harmanlanmış öğretim uygulamalarındaki öğrenci motivasyonuna etkisinin incelenmesi [The investigation of the effects of using course modules designed based on the ARCS motivation theory on students’ motivation on blended courses] (Unpublished Master Dissertation). Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Zonguldak.

  23. Dağ, F. (2011). Harmanlanmış (karma) öğrenme ortamları ve tasarımına ilişkin öneriler [Suggestions on blended learning environments and design]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 73–97.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Delialioğlu, Ö. (2012). Student engageent in blended learning environments with lecture-based and problem-based instructional approaches. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 310–322.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Demirer, V., & Şahin, I. (2009). Effect of blended learning environment on transfer of learning: An experimental study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 518–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Devaux, A., Belanger, J., Grand-Clement, S., & Manville, C. (2017). Education: Digital technology’s role in enabling skills development for a connected world. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE238.html.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and Education. New York: Collier.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dişli, Ö. (2012). Improving writing skills through supplementary computer-assisted activities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ankara: Gazi University.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Donnelly, R. (2006). Blended problem-based learning for teacher education: lessons learnt. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(2), 93–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Döş, B. (2014). Developing and evaluating a blended learning course. Anthropologist, 14(1), 121–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dreyfus, H. L. (2009). On the Internet. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. Retrieved from https://www-07.ibm.com/services/pdf/blended_learning.pdf

  33. Ersoy, H. (2003). Blending online instruction with traditional instruction in the programming language course: A case study. (Master of Science Master), Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

  34. Eurydice. (2015). The teaching profession in Europe: Practices, perceptions, and policies. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

  35. Finger, G., Albion, P., Jamieson-Proctor, R., Cavanagh, R., Grimbeek, P., Lloyd, M., et al. (2013). Teaching teachers for the future (TTF) Project TPACK survey: Summary of the key findings. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2007). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Göktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended Learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. https://doi.org/10.2307/4022859.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 18(3), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Green, H., & Hannon, C. (2007). Their space: Education for a digital generation. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Green, S., & Higgins, J. (Ed.). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, Retrieved from www.handbook.cochrane.org

  45. Gülbahar, Y., & Guven, I. (2008). A Survey on ICT usage and the perceptions of social studies teachers in Turkey. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 37–51.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Güler, S. (2014). Podcasting in pre-service language teacher education: A constructivist perspective. (Masters of Arts Masters), Çukurova University, Adana.

  47. Güler, B., & Şahin, M. (2016). Fen öğretiminde karma öğrenme: Öz-yeterlik inancı ve teknolojiye yönelik tutuma etkisi [Blended learning in science teaching: Effects on self-efficacy belief and attitude towards technology]. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(3), 908–923.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hebebci, M. T., & Usta, E. (2015). Türkiye’de harmanlanmış öğrenme eğilimleri: Bir literatür çalışması [Blended learning trends in Turkey: A literature review study]. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(19), 195–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Heterick, B., & Twigg, C. (2003). The Learning Market Space. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/Newsletters/Feb03.html

  50. Joy II, E. H., & Garcia, F. E. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-significant-difference findings. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1), 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kahyaoğlu, Y. (2014). Bilgisayar dersinde sorgulayıcı ve harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarının etkilerinin araştırılması [The investigation of the effect of inquiry and blended learning environments on computer course] (Unpublished Master Dissertation). Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.

  52. Karakaş, H., & Doğan, A. (2017). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin sınıfta kullandıkları bilgi iletişim teknolojilerine yönelik olumsuz tutumları ve yaşadıkları sorunlar [Primary school teachers’ negative attitudes towards information and communication technology (ICT) and their Problems]. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(1), 629–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Karoğlu, A. K., Kiraz, E., & Özden, M. Y. (2014). Good practices in an undergraduate blended course design. Education and Science, 39(173), 249–263.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kirişçioğlu, S. (2009). Fen laboratuar derslerinde harmanlanmış öğrenme etkinliğinin çeşitli boyutlarda incelenmesi [An investigation of the application of blended learning instruction in science laboratory lessons]. (Master of Science Masters), Celal Bayar University, Manisa.

  56. Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: you don’t always get what you hope for. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kirschner, P. A., & Wopereis, I. G. J. H. (2003). Mindtools for teacher communities: A European perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kortecamp, K., & Croninger, W. R. (1996). Addressing barriers to technology diffusion. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 5(1–2), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Küçük, Ş., & Şahin, I. (2013). From the perspective of community of inquiry framework: An examination of Facebook uses by pre-service teachers as a learning environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 142–156.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2006). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lopez-Perez, M. V., Perez-Lopez, M. C., & Rodriguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Teacher candidates’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56, 818–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ministry of National Education (2017). About FATIH project. Retrieved from http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/en/?page_id=10.

  64. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses: The PRISMA statement. Open Med, 3(3), 123–130.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Moodle (2017). (http://moodle.org/). Accessed 15 February 2017

  66. Ocak, M. A., & Topal, A. D. (2015). Blended learning in anatomy education: A study investigating medical students’ perceptions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(3), 647–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Öngöz, S. (2011). Eğitim fakültelerinde okutulan gelişim ve öğrenme dersine yönelik hazırlanan bir elektronik kitabın değerlendirilmesi [An evaluation of an e-book on development and learning theories utilized in pre-service teacher education] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon.

  68. Orhan, F. (2008). Redesigning a course for blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 9(1), 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  70. Özerbaş, M. E., & Benli, N. (2015). Blended öğrenme ortamının öğrenci akademik başarı ve tutumlarına etkisi [The effect of blended learning on students’ academic achievement and their attitudes]. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1), 87–108.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Öztürk, E., Erdem, M., & Deryakulu, D. (2017). Toplumsal buradalık ve öğretimsel buradalığın bilişsel buradalığı yordama gücü [The predictive power of social and teaching presence on cognitive presence]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 25(4), 1319–1336.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Pamuk, S., Çakır, R., Ergun, M., Yılmaz, H. B., & Ayas, C. (2013). The use of tablet PC and interactive board from the perspectives of teachers and students: Evaluation of the FATİH Project. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 1815–1822.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Sieg, W., & McLaughlin, D. (2016). The effect of blended instruction on accelerated learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(3), 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Perrow, M. (2017). Strengthening the conversation in blended and face-to-face courses: Connecting online and in-person learning with crossover protocols. College Teaching, 65(3), 97–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Pesen, A. (2014). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamının öğretmen adaylarının akademik başarısına, ders çalışma alışkanlıklarına ve güdülenme düzeylerine etkisi [The effect of blended learning environment on academic success, studying habits and motivation of teacher candidates] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Dicle University, Diyarbakır.

  76. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. UK: Blackwell Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  77. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Rice, W. (2011). Moodle 2.0 e-learning course development: A complete guide to successful learning using Moodle. Birmingham: Packt Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Samsa, S., Akyüz, H. İ., Keser, H., & Numanoğlu, G. (2010). The effects of scenario based blended learning environment on attitudes of preservice technologie teachers toward teaching profession. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 11(2), 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 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, 318–336 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Staker, H., & Horn, M. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Retrieved from the Innosight Institute website http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535180.pdf.

  82. Sweeney, T., & Drummond, A. (2013). How prepared are our pre-service teachers to integrate technology? A pilot study. Australian Educational Computing, 27, 117–123.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Tezci, E. (2011). Factors that influence pre-service teachers’ ICT usage in education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 483–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. The Council of Higher Education. (2007). Eğitim fakültesi öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programları [Pre-service teacher education undergraduate programs]. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/30217/E%C4%9E%C4%B0T%C4%B0M+FAK%C3%9CLTES%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERETMEN+YET%C4%B0%C5%9ET%C4%B0RME+L%C4%B0SANS+PROGRAMLARI.pdf/054dfc9e-a753-42e6-a8ad-674180d6e382.

  85. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  86. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. TALIS: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  87. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and skills. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Thompson, A., Bull, G., & Willis, J. (2002). SITE Position Paper: Statement of basic principles and suggested actions ('Ames white paper'). Retrieved from https://aace-sitestatic.s3.amazonaws.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/AmesWhitePaper.pdf?x51956ssss

  89. Türel, Y. K. (2012). Öğretmenlerin akıllı tahta kullanımına yönelik olumsuz tutumları: Problemler ve ihtiyaçlar [Teachers’ negative attitudes towards the use of interactive whiteboard: Needs and problems]. İlköğretim Online, 11(2), 423–439.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Turula, A. (2017). The shallows and depths. Cognitive and social presence in blended tutoring. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1370388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Uluyol, Ç., & Karadeniz, Ş. (2009). Bir harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamı örneği: Öğrenci başarısı ve görüşleri [An example of blended learning environment: Student achievement and perceptions]. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 60–84.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Ünsal, H. (2012). Harmanlanmış öğrenmenin başarı ve motivasyona etkisi [The effect of blended learning on achievement and motivation]. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Usta, E., & Mahiroğlu, A. (2008). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ve çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarının akademik başarı ve doyuma etkisi [The effect of blended learning and online learning on academic achievement and learner satisfaction]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Uzun, A., & Özkılıç, R. (2012). Students' views on blended learning environment designed for programming languages course. E-journal of New World Sciences Academy, 7(2), 638–646.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Wetzel, K., Buss, R., Foulger, T. S., & Lindsey, L.-A. (2014). Infusing educational technology in teaching methods courses: Successes and dilemmas. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30, 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. World Economic Forum (2016). The Future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf

  98. Yağcı, H., Çınarbaş, H. İ., & Hoş, R. (2016). Turkish EFL students' perceptions about blended English courses in a teacher education program. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 2(3), 959–972.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Yaman, M., & Graf, D. (2010). Evaluation of an international blended learning cooperation project in biology teacher education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Yapici, İ. Ü. (2016). Effectiveness of blended cooperative learning environment in biology teaching: Classroom community sense, academic achievement and satisfaction. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i4.1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Yıldırım, S. (2007). Current utilization of ICT in Turkish basic education schools: A review of teacher’s ICT use and barriers to integration. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(2), 171–186.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Yıldırım, İ. (2017). The effects of gamification-based teaching practices on student achievement and students' attitudes toward lesson. Internet and Higher Education, 33(86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Yılmaz, M. B., & Orhan, F. (2010). Pre-service English teachers in blended learning environment in respect to their learning approaches. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 157–164.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdullah Atmacasoy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 Characteristics of the Studies Included in the Systematic Review

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atmacasoy, A., Aksu, M. Blended learning at pre-service teacher education in Turkey: A systematic review. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2399–2422 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9723-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Blended learning
  • Pre-service teacher education
  • ICT integration