Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Blended and Online Learning Environments: Motivations, Contradictions, and Influencing Factors

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Exploring Digital Resilience (ItAIS 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation ((LNISO,volume 57))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 649 Accesses

Abstract

Blended and online learning environments continue to grow, transforming higher education. The motivation behind this study is to explore blended and online learning environments, from the perspective of students, through the lens of Activity Theory (AT). Based on 12 virtual semi-structured interviews with Master's (MSc) students at one University in England, the paper sheds light onto some of the findings with respect to student motivation underlying engagement, as well as tensions and contradictions in the activity system.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The literature uses the terms ‘instructor’, ‘teacher’, ‘lecturer’, ‘educator’, and ‘academic’ almost interchangeably. However, to remain consistent with the terminology adopted by the University in this study, the term ‘lecturer’ will be adopted hereafter.

References

  1. Engeström, Y.: The future of activity theory: a rough draft. Presented at the International Society of Cultural-historical Activity Research Conference, San Diego, CA, USA (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, D., Karanasios, S., Slavova, M.: Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behavior. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 62(4), 776–788 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dennehy, D., Conboy, K.: Breaking the flow: a study of contradictions in information systems development (ISD). Inf. Technol. People 33(2), 477–501 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chiu, T.K.: Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 54, 1–17 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mahaye, N. E.: The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on education: navigating forward the pedagogy of blended learning. Research online (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  6. GOV.UK. Actions for FE colleges and providers during the coronavirus outbreak (2021). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-maintaining-further-education-provision

  7. Rasheed, R.A., Kamsin, A., Abdullah, N.A.: Challenges in the online component of blended learning: a systematic review. Comput. Educ. 144, 103701 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De Main, L., Wolstencroft, P.: Value for money or a transformative experience: what do students actually value about university? (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Law, K.M., Geng, S., Li, T.: Student enrolment, motivation and learning performance in a blended learning environment: the mediating effects of social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Comput. Educ. 136, 1–12 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Davies, R., Dean, D., Ball, N.: Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 61(4), 563–580 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim, M.K., Kim, S.M., Khera, O., Getman, J.: The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: an exploration of design principles. Internet High. Educ. 22, 37–50 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ibrahim, M.M., Nat, M.: Blended learning motivation model for instructors in higher education institutions. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 16(1), 1–21 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee, J., Lim, C., Kim, H.: Development of an instructional design model for flipped learning in higher education. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 65(2), 427–453 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9502-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen Hsieh, J.S., Wu, W.C.V., Marek, M.W.: Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL learning. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 30(1–2), 1–21 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wester, E.R., Walsh, L.L., Arango-Caro, S., Callis-Duehl, K.L.: Student engagement declines in STEM undergraduates during COVID-19–driven remote learning. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 22(1), ev22i1-2385 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Donnermann, M., et al.: Social robots and gamification for technology supported learning: an empirical study on engagement and motivation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 121, 106792 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Moore, M.J.: Three types of interaction. In: Keegan, D. (eds.) A Typology Of Distance Teaching Systems. Distance Education: New Perspectives, pp. 19–24. Routledge, New York(1993)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hillman, D.C., Willis, D.J., Gunawardena, C.N.: Learner-interface interaction in distance education: an extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. Am. J. Distance Educ. 8(2), 30–42 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., Paris, A.H.: School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 74(1), 59–109 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Payne, L.: Student engagement: three models for its investigation. J. Furth. High. Educ. 3(2), 1–17 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Deci, E., Ryan, R.: Cognitive evaluation theory. In: Deci, Edward L., Ryan, Richard M. (eds.) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, pp. 87–112. Springer US, Boston, MA (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Ngan, Shing-Chung., Law, K.: Exploratory network analysis of learning motivation factors in e-learning facilitated computer programming courses. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 24(4), 705–717 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0223-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 54–67 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Paudel, P.: Online education: Benefits, challenges and strategies during and after COVID-19 in higher education. Int. J. Stud. Educ. 3(2), 70–85 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Aboagye, E., Yawson, J.A., Appiah, K.N.: COVID-19 and E-learning: the challenges of students in tertiary institutions. Soc. Educ. Res. 2, 1–8 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bednar, P., Welch, C., Graziano, A.: Learning Objects and their implications on learning: a case of developing the foundation for a new knowledge infrastructure. In: Harman, K., Koohang, A. (eds.) Learning Objects: Applications, Implications & Future Directions, pp. 157–185. Informing Science Press (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shand, K., Farrelly, S.G.: The art of blending: benefits and challenges of a blended course for preservice teachers. J. Educ. Online 15(1), n1 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bellamy, R.K.: Designing educational technology: computer-mediated change. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 123–146 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M.A.: Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Uden, L.: Activity theory for designing mobile learning. Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organ. 1(1), 81–102 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zaghloul, F.: Managing Inter-organisational Collaboration in Information Systems in the UK Public Sector (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds) (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Love, A.G.: The growth and current state of learning communities in higher education. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 132(132), 5–18 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fagan, M.H., Neill, S., Wooldridge, B.R.: Exploring the intention to use computers: an empirical investigation of the role of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and perceived ease of use. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. Spring 31–37 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Newlands, D.A., Coldwell, J.M.: Managing student expectations online. In: Lau, Rynson W. H., Li, Qing, Cheung, Ronnie, Liu, Wenyin (eds.) Advances in Web-Based Learning – ICWL 2005, pp. 355–363. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11528043_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Argyris, C.: Theories of action that inhibit individual learning. Am. Psychol. 31(9), 638 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bednar, P., Welch, C.: Socio-technical perspectives on smart working: creating meaningful and sustainable systems. Inf. Syst. Front. 22(2), 281–298 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09921-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Fatema Zaghloul

  2. School of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Peter Bednar

  3. Department of Informatics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Peter Bednar

Authors
  1. Fatema Zaghloul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Bednar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatema Zaghloul .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Roberta Cuel

  2. Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Diego Ponte

  3. Department of Economics and Social Sciences - Faculty of Economics and Law, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Piacenza, Italy

    Francesco Virili

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Zaghloul, F., Bednar, P. (2022). Blended and Online Learning Environments: Motivations, Contradictions, and Influencing Factors. In: Cuel, R., Ponte, D., Virili, F. (eds) Exploring Digital Resilience. ItAIS 2021. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol 57. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10902-7_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation