Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Time to engage: Implementing math and literacy blended learning routines in an Indian elementary classroom

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

An Author Correction to this article was published on 30 September 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

In blended learning classrooms, children access digital curriculum and receive traditional instruction in a physical setting hence implementing intricate blended learning requires working closely with teachers to help them determine rhythms and patterns for their classrooms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of blended environment on students’ classroom engagement and to study its potential in unprivileged classrooms. Design-based research methods were used with 40 children from a fourth-grade standard class in an Indian elementary school. These methods included gathering and analysing data in several cycles. Quantitative data were collected through classroom observations for nine weeks where student engagement data was gathered and recorded. Interviews with four teachers were also conducted to collect information about the experience of introducing and implementing blended learning in their classroom. The findings revealed that blended learning ambience increases students’ classroom engagement in an elementary classroom when teachers were supported with necessary proficiencies. Overall, the time spent in a blended learning environment had a positive effect on children’ classroom engagement irrespective of gender and these effects emerged during nine weeks. The implication is that blended learning is potent in bringing positive changes in students’ classroom learning engagement provided teachers getting necessary encouragements, even in schools with low technological infrastructure and underprepared but willing teachers.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 30 September 2020

    After publication of this work, we noted that we failed to include the complete list of all coauthors.

References

  • Agirdag, O., Yazici, Z., & Sierens, S. (2015). Trends in pre-school enrolment in Turkey: Unequal access and differential consequences. Comparative Education, 51(4), 537–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, I.E.; Seaman, J.(2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010; Babson survey research group, the Sloan consortium. Available online: http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences.

  • Al Mosawi, A., & Wali, E. A. (2015). Exploring the potential of mobile application to support learning and engagement in elementary classes. International Journal of Mobile and, Exploring the Potential of Mobile Applications to Support Learning and Engagement in Elementary Classes. Blended Learning, 7(2), 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarado-Alcantar, R., Keeley, R., & Sherrow, B. (2018). Accessibility and usability of preferences in blended learning for children with and without disabilities in high school. Journal of Online Learning Research, 4(2), 173–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, E. (2019). (blended) learning: How traditional best teaching practices impact blended elementary classrooms. Journal of Online Learning Research, 5(1), 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASER (2017). Annual status of education report. PRATHAM. ASER Centre. India. Retrieved from http://www.asercentre.org/Keywords/p/315.html

  • ASER (2018). Annual Status of Education Report. PRATHAM. ASER Centre. India. Retrieved from http://www.asercentre.org/Keywords/p/315.html

  • Author (2018).

  • Batra, R., & Reio Jr., T. G. (2016). Gender inequality issues in India. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(1), 88–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bindu C.N. (2019).Barriers to ICT Integration in teaching: A case study of teachers in Kerala. Retrieved from http://www.educationindiajournal.org/home_art_avi.php?path=&id=351.

  • Brinkmann, S., &Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (Vol. 3). Sage.

  • Cargile, L. A. (2015). Blending instruction with khan academy. Mathematics Teacher, 109(1), 34–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Census of India (2011). Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/age_structure_and_marital_status.aspx

  • Chapman, C., Laird, J., & Kewalramani, A. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972–2008. Population. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

  • Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2006). Student engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, D. L. (2010). Engagement, excitement, anxiety, and fear: Learners’ experiences of starting an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dang, Zhang, Ravindran & Osmonbekov (2016). Examining Student Satisfaction and Gender Differences in Technology-Supported, Blended Learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 27(2). Retrieved from-https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6485/cc98d91c787207a0d17ae2bbdcfbd78ce7a4.pdf

  • D’Mello, S. K., & Graesser, A. (2012). AutoTutor and affective AutoTutor: Learning by talking with cognitively and emotionally intelligent computers that talk back. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 2(4), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/2395123.2395128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dotterer, A., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1649–1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9647-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan-Hudspeth (2018). 3 positive Outcomes of Blended Learning. Link-https://www.edutopia.org/article/3-positive-outcomes-blended-learning

  • Dziuban, C., Graham, C., & Picciano, A. G. (2013). Research perspectives in blended Learning (2nd ed.). Routledge, Taylor and Francis: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • EQFI (2015). Education quality foundation of India. New Delhi. India. Retrieved fromhttp://eqfi.org/index.html.

  • Evmenova, (2018). Preparing teachers to use universal Design for Learning to support diverse learners. Link- https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1184985.pdf

  • Fleck, J. (2012). Blended learning and learning communities: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of management development, 31, 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711211219059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (p. 97–131). Springer Science Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5.

  • Garrison, D.R. & Vaughan, N.D. (2008). Blended Learning in higher education; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008.

  • Greene, K., & Hale, W. (2017). The state of 21st century learning in the K-12 world of the United States: Online and blended learning opportunities for American elementary and secondary children. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 26(2), 131–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C.R.(2006). Blended learning systems: Definitions, current trends, and future directions. In the handbook of blended Learning: Global perspectives, local designs; bonk, C., Graham, C., Eds.; Pfeiffer: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2006; pp. 3–21.

  • Graham, L., LaBonte, R., Roberts, V., O’Byrne, I., &Osterhout, C. (2014). Open learning in K–12 online and blended learning environments. In R. Ferdig and K. Kennedy (Eds). Handbook of research on K–12 online and blended learning(pp. 415–436). ETC Press.

  • Gupta, C and Haridas K (2012) Role of ICT in Improving the Quality of School Education in Bihar (working paper) retrieved from IGC international Growth Centre website http://www.theigc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Das-Gupta-KPN-2012-Working-Paper.pdf

  • Halvorson & Graham, (2019). Learner engagement in blended Learning environments: A conceptual framework. Link- https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1218398.pdf

  • Jain, C., & Prasad, N. (2018). Indian education system: Structure and key challenges. In C. Jain and N. Prasad (Eds.) Quality of secondary education in India (pp. 67–78). Springer.

  • Jachin, N., & Usagawa, T. (2017). Potential impact of blended learning on teacher education in Mongolia. Creative Education, 8, 1481–1494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janosz, M. (2012a). Part IV commentary: Outcomes of engagement and engagement as an outcome: Some consensus, divergences, and unanswered questions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 695–703). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. S. (2008). School engagement trajectories and their differential predictive relations to drop out. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00546.x.

  • Jha, P., & Parvati, P. (2014). Assessing progress on universal elementary education in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(16), 44–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junod, R., DuPaul, G., Jitendra, A., Volpe, R., & Cleary, K. (2006). Classroom observations of students with and without ADHD: Differences across types of engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazakoff, E. R., Macaruso, P., & Hook, P. (2018). Efficacy of a blended learning approach toelementary school reading instruction for children who are English learners. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(2), 429–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubiatko, M. (2013). The comparison of different age groups on the attitudes toward and the use of ICT. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1263–1272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A. S., & Rustagi, P. (2016). Elementary Education in India: Progress, setbacks, and challenges (no. id: 8392). Retrieved from-https://ideas.repec.org/p/ess/wpaper/id8392.html.

  • Kundu, A. & Dey, K. N., (2018). Barriers to Utilizing ICT in Education in India with a Special Focus on Rural Areas. International Journal of Scientific Research and Reviews (IJSRR), Vol. 7, Issue 2 April–June 2018, Pp.341–359, Available at: www.ijsrr.org/down_933.php

  • Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: Predictive of children’s achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence: Implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and substance use. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, J. (2018). The blended learning blueprint for elementary teachers. Corwin.

  • Mayadas, F.A.; Picciano, A.G.(2007). Blended learning and localness: The means and the end. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 2007, 11, 3–7.

  • MEIT (2015). Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Govt of India. Retrieved from https://www.digitalindia.gov.in/

  • MEIT (2018). Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Government of India. Retrieved from http://www.meity.gov.in/schemes

  • MHRD (1992). Learning without burden. Report of the National Advisory Committee (Yashpal Committee). Retrieved from http://el.doccentre.info/eldoc1/0610/ED1_Load_of_School_Bag_Yashpal_Com_Rep.html

  • Minty, R., & Pather, E. U. (2014). The integration of ICTs in the teaching and learning of mathematical literacy: A study conducted in eight schools in Gauteng, South Africa. International Journal of Science Commerce and Humanities, 2(1), 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • NITI Ayog. Govt. of India. Retrieved from https://niti.gov.in/

  • Norberg, A., & Dziuban, C. D. (2011). Moskal, P.D. a time-based blended learning model. Horizon, 19, 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pape, L. (2010). Blended teaching and learning: Developing courses that combine face-to-face and virtual instruction in pursuit of 21st-century skills in classrooms. School Administrator,67(4), 16.

  • Pearson India Education Services (2016). Voice of teacher survey: 2016. Retrieved from https://in.pearson.com/about-us/social-impact/voice-of-teacher.html

  • Powell, A., Watson, J., Staley, P., Patrick, S., Horn, M., Fetzer, L., Hibbard, L., Oglesby, J., & Verma, S. (2015). Blending learning: The evolution of online and face-to-face education from 2008-2015. Promising practices in blended and online Learning series. International association for K-12 online learning. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560788.pdf

  • Prasad, R. (2013). Global ICT standardisation forum for India (GISFI) and 5G standardization. Journal of ICT Standardization, 1(2), 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, (2019). Blended Learning: A New Hybrid Teaching Methodology. JRSP-ELT, Issue 13, Vol. 3. Link- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333485907

  • Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rhode, G., Jensen, W. R., & Raeus, H. K. (1998). The tough kid book. Practical classroom management strategies: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooney, J. E. (2003). Blending learning opportunities to enhance educational programming and meetings. (5), 26–32.

  • Rumberger, R. W., & Rotermun, S. (2012). The relationship between engagement and high school dropout. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 491–513). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saritepeco, M., & Çakır, H. (2015). The effect of blended learning environment on student motivation and student engagement: A study on social studies course. Education and Science, 40(177), 203–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schechter, R., Macaruso, P., Kazakoff, E. R., & Brooke, E. (2015). Exploration of a blended learning approach to reading instruction for low SES children in early elementary grades. Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 32(3–4), 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In S. J. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219–235). Springer.

  • Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended Learning programs. Retrieved July 20,2015 from asianvu.com/digitallibrary/elearning.

  • Staker, H. & Horn, M. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535180.pdf

  • The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (2012, 16th April). Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_8/Epistles_-_Fourth_Series/XX_Diwanji_Saheb

  • Tucker, C., Wycoff, T., & Green, J. (2017). Blended learning in action: A practical guide toward sustainable change. Corwin.

  • Umphrey, J. (2013). Blended learning: Blended learning can give teachers greater control over their curricula and delivery while giving children more opportunities for collaboration and ownership of their educations. Principal Leadership, 14(1), 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, N. (2014). Student engagement and blended Learning: Making the assessment connection. Education in Science, 2014(4), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4040247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Ming-Te & Holcombe, Rebecca. (2010). Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Environment, Engagement, and Academic Achievement in Middle School. American Educational Research Journal - AMER EDUC RES J. 47. 633–662. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361209.

  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2014). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student engagement. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 137–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, A. G., Rouse, A. G., & Jones, F. (2018). Exploring differences in measurement and reporting of classroom observation inter-rater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 23(1), 4–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2013). Blending into the background. E-Learning Age Magazine, p. 1.

  • Zhang, Gavin; Dang, Mandy; Amer, Beverly; and Trainor, Kevin,(2018). "Who Favor Blended Learning More: Men or Women? An Explorative Study on Gender Differences" . PACIS 2018 Proceedings. 1. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/1, Dynamic Feedback Balancing Algorithm for Data Management of an Integrated Sensing Network, 2

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnab Kundu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors hereby declare that there have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Bankura University in West Bengal, India granted the ethical approval for this research. In accordance with that approval, permission was also obtained from the administration of the cooperating schools to seek consent/assent from teachers.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: We failed to include the complete list of all co-authors. The full list of authors is now presented in this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kundu, A., Bej, T. & Rice, M. Time to engage: Implementing math and literacy blended learning routines in an Indian elementary classroom. Educ Inf Technol 26, 1201–1220 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10306-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10306-0

Keywords

Navigation