Factors Explaining Active vs Inactive Users of eLearning in a Blended Learning Context among University Students in Thailand
Keywords:
eLearning, Blended learning, ThailandAbstract
The use of blended learning has continued to grow yet its impact in terms of how actively engaged students are is not as thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify active and inactive users of a learning management system within the context of a blended learning experience at a tertiary institution in Thailand. A sample of 288 participants (n = 288) was taken from the research site. Utilizing a cross-sectional survey design, academic performance, course satisfaction, gender, class level, major, and attendance were used to distinguish between active and inactive users. In terms of predicting active users, the linear discriminant analysis showed an accuracy of 72 %, as well as a sensitivity of 81 %, and a precision of 75 %. The effect size was moderate for academic performance and attendance when comparisons were made between inactive and active users of the learning management system. Active users had higher academic performance, lower tardies, and fewer absences than inactive users. This indicates that active students generally perform better not only in traditional instructional environments but also in a blended learning context.
References
Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 440-454.
Alshehri, A. F. (2017). Student satisfaction and commitment towards a blended learning finance course: A new evidence from using the investment model. Research in International Business and Finance, 41, 423–433.
Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T. (2018). Investigating the impact of blended learning on academic performance in a first semester college physics course. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(1), 67–94.
Broadbent, J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner’s self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24–32.
Broadbent, J., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2018). Profiles in self -regulated learning and their correlates for online and blended learning students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(6), 1435–1455.
Brook, I., & Beauchamp, G. (2015). A study of final year education studies undergraduate students’ perceptions of blended learning within a higher education course. Educational Futures,7(1), 18-38.
Cenejac, J. (2017, March 4). 5 blended learning trends that define higher education. Retrieved 2018, June 25, from https://eLearningindustry.com/5-blended-learningtrends-that-define-higher-education
Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2014). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257–278.
Deschacht, N., & Goeman, K. (2015). The effect of blended learning on course persistence and performance of adult learners: A difference-in-differences analysis. Computers & Education, 87, 83–89.
Fisher, R., Perényi, Á., & Birdthistle, N. (2018). The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1-17.
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161.
Havik, T., & Westergård, E. (2019). Do teachers matter? Students’ perceptions of classroom interactions and student engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 488-507.
Howell, G. F., & Buck, J. M. (2012). The adult student and course satisfaction: What matters most? Innovative Higher Education, 37(3), 215–226.
Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2014). Faculty attitudes on technology. Retrieved 2018, June 25, from https://www.insidehighered.com/system/files/media/IHE-FacTechSurvey2014%20final.pdf
Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638–654.
Lin, Y.-W., Tseng, C.-L., & Chiang, P.-J. (2016). The effect of blended lear ning in mathematics course. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(3), 741–770.
Manwaring, K. C., Larsen, R., Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Halverson, L. R. (2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. The Internetand Higher Education, 35, 21-33.
Montgomery, A. P., Mousavi, A., Carbonaro, M., Hayward, D. V., & Dunn, W. (2019). Using learning analytics to explore self-regulated learning in flipped blended learning music teacher education. British Journal of Ed ucation al Technology, 50(1), 114-127.
Nortvig, A.-M., Petersen, A. K., & Balle, S. H. (2018). A literature review of the factors influencing e - learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 16(1), 46–55.
Okhwa, L., & Lm, Y. (2012). The emergence of the cyber university and blended learning in Korea. In C. J. Bonk, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Peterson, D. J. (2016). The flipped classroom improves student achievement and course satisfaction in a statistics course: A quasi-experimental study. Teaching of Psychology, 43(1), 10-15.
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United States (p.49). Retrieved 2018, June 25, from http://onlineLearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf
Skrbinjek, V., & Dermol, V. (2019). Predicting students’ satisfaction using a decision tree. Tertiary Education and Management, 25(2), 101–113.
Sophonhiranrak, S., Suwannatthachote, P., & Ngudgratoke, S. (2015). Factors affecting creative problem solving in the blended learning environment: A review of the literature. Procedia-Socialand Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2130-2136.
Strauss, V. (2013). Why K -12 online learning isn’t really revolutionizing teaching. Retrieved 2018, June 25, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/03/why-k-12-online-learning-isnt-really-revolutionizing-teaching/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a977d323d5be
Sutherland, D., Warwick, P., Anderson, J., & Learmonth, M. (2018). How do quality of teaching, assessment, and feedback drive undergraduate course satisfaction in U.K. Business Schools? A comparative analysis with nonbusiness school courses using the U.K. National Student Survey. Journalof Management Education, 42 (5), 618-649.
Tay, H. Y. (2016). Investigating engagement in a blended learning course. Cogent Education, 3(1). 1135772.
Tratnik, A., Urh, M., & Jereb, E. (2019). Stu dent satisfaction with an online and a face-to-face Business English course in a higher education context. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(1), 36-45.
Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Tondeur, J., & Lombaerts, K. (2015). Motivational profiles of adult learners in online and blended learning. Retrieved 2018, June 25, from https://search.proquest.com/openview/75b0c7bc8ab3a8638e90220cfb6959a6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1796419
Wengrowicz, N., Swart, W., Paul, R., Macleod, K., Dori, D., & Dori, Y. J. (2018). Students ’ collaborative learning attitudes and their satisfaction with online collaborative case-based courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(4), 283–300.
Wichadee, S. (2018). Significant predictors for effectiveness of blended learning In a language course. The JALT CALL Journal, 14(1), 25–42.
Wicks, D. A., Craft, B. B., Mason, G. N., Gritter, K., & Bolding, K. (2015). An investigation into the community of inquiry of blended classrooms by a faculty learning community. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 53–62.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
1 All articles will undergo a formal peer-review. A panel of experts from within or without the university will examine the article; approval from a minimum of two experts is required for publication. Revisions posed by the experts must be completed by the research prior to publication.
2 Once published in the ASEAN Journal of Education, the article becomes intellectual property of Suan Dusit University. Duplication, in full or part, requires permission from Suan Dusit University.
3 Excluding errors incurred during printing, author(s) are responsible for the content of their articles.
