Abstract
With the rapid advancements in technology, the need for combined teaching, face-to-face instruction with online components, became a priority to ensure that students could continue their education in both these learning environments. Blended learning has shown positive impacts on student engagement, motivation, and academic performance in various studies.
Therefore, this study focuses on students’ motivation and engagement during blended learning. The research was conducted in three different schools in Prishtina and the data was collected through two sets of questionnaires—one for students and one for teachers. The findings of the study were mixed. While some strategies and tools proved effective in fostering student engagement, the results also highlighted challenges in maintaining motivation and active participation in blended learning classroom. Ultimately, the study offers valuable insights into how online education can be structured to better support student learning and engagement in a blended learning environment, especially in younger learners.
Keywords
Blended learningMotivationEngagementTechnologyPrishtina
References
- Allen, I. & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States.Google Scholar ↗
- Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning.Google Scholar ↗
- Beam, P. (1998). But what did we learn...?. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation.Google Scholar ↗
- Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1-18.Google Scholar ↗
- Chen, P., Lambert, A., & Guidry, K. (2018). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 146-157.Google Scholar ↗
- Dabbagh, N., and B. Bannan-Ritland. 2005. Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and applications. Upper Saddle River.Google Scholar ↗
- Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: characteristics and pedagogical implications.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education.Google Scholar ↗
- Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating Effective Student Engagement in Online Courses: What Do Students Find Engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningGoogle Scholar ↗
- El Mansour, B., Assistant, D., & Mupinga. (2007). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes.Google Scholar ↗
- Hartley, K. W. (1999). Media overload in instructional Web pages and the impact on learning.Google Scholar ↗
- Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar ↗
- Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar ↗
- Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar ↗
- Maki, R.H. and Maki, W.S. (2007). Online Courses. In F.T. Durso (Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 527-552). New York: Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar ↗
- Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.Google Scholar ↗
- Mehra, V., & Omidian, F. (2011). Examining students’ attitudes towards e-learning: a case from India. Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology.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.Google Scholar ↗
- Robertson, J.S., Grant, M.M. and Jackson, L. (2005). Is online instruction perceived as effective as campus instruction by graduate students in education?, Internet and Higher Education.Google Scholar ↗
- Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational PsychologyGoogle Scholar ↗
- Sanders, L. D., Daly, A. P., & Fitzgerald, K. (2016). Predicting retention, understanding attrition: a prospective study of foundation year students. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning.Google Scholar ↗
- Sun, J., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology.Google Scholar ↗
- Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2006). Teaching courses online: A Review of the research. Review of Educational Research.Google Scholar ↗
- Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.Google Scholar ↗
- Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time e-learners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking elearning programmes. Journal of Online Learning and TeachingGoogle Scholar ↗
- Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, (2004). Distance education: A consumer's guide. Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications.Google Scholar ↗
- Yatz, Y. J. (2002). Attitudes affecting college students’ preferences for distance learning. Journal of Computer Assisted LearningGoogle Scholar ↗
- Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., and Tan, H.S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record.Google Scholar ↗