Upload
fairus
View
1.225
Download
29
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This paper aims to determine the satisfaction level of the Pre-diploma (Science) students in usingblended learning model. MAT 081 is a Basic Mathematics course with duration of 14 weeks with5 study hours per week. Two groups of MAT 081 were offered in the semester of July – November2005 and the students attended 4 hours of face-to-face learning and 1 hour of online learning perweek in this blended learning mode. This study employed a mixed method design in whichquantitative data was first collected through survey and followed by the qualitative data whichwould help to refine and explain the general picture obtained through quantitative data. A censussurvey was employed in the quantitative survey. 12 students were selected to participate in theinterview. The results showed that the students were satisfied with all components (Content,Learner Interface, Feedback and Assessment, Personalisation, Learning Community, Access andOverall Satisfaction). The overall findings showed that the students were satisfied, happy andenjoy themselves in the blended learning mode used in MAT081 and considered it as aninvaluable experience in the process of learning. A large number of students (45%) suggested amix of 3-hour face-to-face and 2-hour online learning.
Citation preview
C S S R 0 8’ 0 9 14 - 15 March 2009
C O N F E R E N C E ON S C I E N T I F I C & S O C I A L R E S E A R C H
Paper number: 5304740
TEACHING MATHEMATICS USING BLENDED LEARNING MODEL:
A CASE STUDY IN UITM SARAWAK CAMPUS
Ling Siew Eng1, Elinda Lee Ai Lim
2, Kelvin Goh Tee Hiong
3 and Lee Beng Yong
4
1234
Fakulti Teknologi Maklumat & Sains Kuantitatif, UiTM Sarawa, Kampus Kota Samarahan
This paper aims to determine the satisfaction level of the Pre-diploma (Science) students in using
blended learning model. MAT 081 is a Basic Mathematics course with duration of 14 weeks with
5 study hours per week. Two groups of MAT 081 were offered in the semester of July – November
2005 and the students attended 4 hours of face-to-face learning and 1 hour of online learning per
week in this blended learning mode. This study employed a mixed method design in which
quantitative data was first collected through survey and followed by the qualitative data which
would help to refine and explain the general picture obtained through quantitative data. A census
survey was employed in the quantitative survey. 12 students were selected to participate in the
interview. The results showed that the students were satisfied with all components (Content,
Learner Interface, Feedback and Assessment, Personalisation, Learning Community, Access and
Overall Satisfaction). The overall findings showed that the students were satisfied, happy and
enjoy themselves in the blended learning mode used in MAT081 and considered it as an
invaluable experience in the process of learning. A large number of students (45%) suggested a
mix of 3-hour face-to-face and 2-hour online learning.
Keywords: Blended learning, face-to-face learning, online learning, satisfaction
1. INTRODUCTION
Traditional face-to-face teaching (Instructor-led Era) has been introduced for more than 3000 years ago
(Singh & Robinson, 2001) and is still a dominant form of knowledge transfer. Adapting a technology-
based approach in teaching and learning has started since 1960s. In the 1960s and 1970s, the first
technology-based training approach came with minicomputer and mainframe had benefits hundreds to
thousands of people (Bersin, 2004). In the early 1980s, the arrival of the first personal computer (PC)
rushed educators and trainers into PC multimedia technologies (Bersin, 2004). Between 1984-1993, we
entered a new era, the multimedia era (Bersin, 2004 ) .
With the advancement of Internet and World Wide Web (WWW) technology during the late 1990’s,
e-learning has become a popular mode of teaching and learning process. In 1994, the Internet technology
generated the first wave of e-learning (Ron, 2001). One of the advantages of e-learning is that students
can set learning to their own pace and learn at anytime and anywhere. In addition, e-learning course offer
students access to the WWW. In this environment, students can take virtual tours of organizations being
studied, view streaming video clips, hear audio tapes of CEOs, and interact with people from all over the
world (White, 2001).
In the middle of 2001, website design, rich streaming media high bandwidth generated the second
wave of e-learning which helped us to realize that e-learning alone is not enough (Ron, 2001). In the
middle of 2001 also, people were beginning to get a bit gloomy about e-learning. The market was not
growing as fast as expected and everyone was suffering somewhat from "e-learning fatigue" (Osguthorpe
& Graham, 2003). That meant the use of information and communication technologies in teaching and
learning would provide enormous benefits and also some weaknesses (Zenger & Uehlien, 2001).
Today, the traditional face-to-face learning is still a dominant form of knowledge transfer. There are some
advantages on traditional face-to-face learning over e-learning. The traditional classroom has the major
advantages of face-to-face interaction between the students and educators as well as between the students
C S S R 0 8’ 0 9 14 - 15 March 2009
C O N F E R E N C E ON S C I E N T I F I C & S O C I A L R E S E A R C H
Paper number: 5304740
themselves where students can derive motivation from the teachers and other students (White, 2001). This
cultural effect is the most popular advantage in the traditional classroom. According to Bersin (2004), two
of the biggest challenges with traditional face-to-face classrooms are lack of scale and long deployment
times (Bersin, 2004).
According to White (2001), both of the learning environments above offer some advantages that the
other cannot replace. Since both methods have their own strengths, some researchers suggest using the
blended learning (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Osguthorpe et al., 2003) which will provide the optimal ‘mix’
between online learning and traditional face-to-face learning (Black, 2002; Garnham et al., 2002). The
blended learning incorporates characteristics of both the traditional and online classroom settings.
According to Barnum & Paarmann (2002), while learners enjoy the power and convenience offered by e-
learning, they also need some face-to-face interaction to enhance the learning.
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
As the number of students’ intake in University Teknologi MARA Sarawak (UiTMCS) has increased
consistently in the past few semesters and projected to be increased to 200,000 students in 2010, a few
questions arise. Is the university ready to handle the increasing number of students in terms of physical
facilities? Will the lecturers will be overloaded or need to come back for night lectures because of the
shortage of the lecture rooms? To plan for the drastic increase in the number of students in the next few
years, it is necessary for the university to look for alternative modes of course delivery to counter some of
these problems.
The implementation of blended learning course (combination of online learning and face-to-face
learning) involves certain number of factors including technology, contents as well as all of the human
factors involved. According to White (2001), factors such as course content, student characteristics and
teacher characteristics (human factors) will no doubt play a significant role in the successful
implementation of flexible delivery modes.
The key component in developing an acceptance blended learning approach is students’ satisfaction
(Iron et al., 2002). However, are our students satisfied with the blended learning course? Are they
satisfied with the components in blended learning course?
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objectives of the study are:
i. To determine the students’ overall satisfaction levels with the blended learning course.
a. To determine the participants’ satisfaction levels with the content.
b. To determine the participants’ satisfaction levels with the learner interface.
c. To determine the participants’ satisfaction levels with the feedback and assessment
d. To determine the participants’ satisfaction levels with the personalization.
e. To determine the participants’ satisfaction levels with the learning community.
f. To determine the participants’ satisfaction levels with the access.
ii. To determine the ratio of contact hours between face-to-face and online learning in blended
learning course.
4. METHODOLOGY
MAT 081, a Basic Mathematic course was offered to Part one pre-diploma (Science) students with a total
of 5 contact hours per week for 14 weeks in each semester. The traditional lecture approach used in
teaching MAT 081 was redesigned to blended learning approach, a combination of traditional face-to-face
classroom interaction with online e-learning component. The face-to-face session was scheduled twice a
week with two hours each in lecture room. Lectures were conducted during the face-to-face session and
quizzes and tests were carried out for the assessment of the students’ performance. One hour of
synchronous online discussion was conducted per week in computer laboratory. However, students were
C S S R 0 8’ 0 9 14 - 15 March 2009
C O N F E R E N C E ON S C I E N T I F I C & S O C I A L R E S E A R C H
Paper number: 5304740
encouraged to login at anytime and any place in the vicinity of the campus to access the online learning
tools. These online learning tools include course content, course material such as chapter notes, tutorials
and past semester examination questions, online discussion, quizzes, assignments, forum, e-mail and links
to other resources in the Internet. All these served as a supplement to the face-to-face learning mode.
Moodle which is an open source software package was used for this blended learning mode. It is a course
management system which is able to support and provide the online learning tool that the team had
planned for MAT 081.
The explanatory design of mixed method was used in this study. This method places a priority on
quantitative data collection and analysis in which quantitative data were collected first and followed by the
qualitative data. The rationale of employing this approach was that the quantitative data and results would
provide a general picture of the research problem and the qualitative data would help to refine and explain
the general picture (Creswell, 2005).
The population of the research is the Pre-Diploma (Science) Part 1 students from UiTM Sarawak who
enrolled for Basic Mathematics 1 (MAT 081) in the semester of July – November 2005. The total number
of students was 50 with 21 students in Group 1 and 29 students in Group 2. All of them were taken as
respondents for the quantitative research.
As for the qualitative research, twelve students with six from each group were selected randomly as
the participants for an interview session to get the students’ general perception on the blended learning
model used in this course. Out of the six students selected from each group, two each was selected from
the Good, Average and Poor category based on the coursework results of the students. Students with 75
marks and above were classified as Good, students with 50 marks and above but less than 75 were
classified as Average and students with marks less than 50 were classified as poor. These classifications
were done based on the grade and mark implemented in the examination evaluation system of UiTM. The
rationale of having a combination of Good, Average and Poor students as the participants was to make
sure that the selected students were able to express their thoughts and opinions.
Two instruments were created with each of these to collect quantitative data and qualitative data. The
first instrument was adapted from by Hisham, Campton and FitsGerald (2004). This instrument consisted
of 31 items 7-point Likert scale which was categorized into 7 components to measure the satisfaction level
of the respondents on the blended learning model. Students were also asked to choose the appropriate
combination time slot for the blended learning model in item 32 in order to help to determine the best
combination of face-to-face learning and online learning. The second instrument is structured questions
where students were ask to give their opinion on satisfaction with the blended learning course
The questionnaire was given to the students to answer on the last week of lecture. The students were
given 30 minutes to answer and the questionnaire was collected immediately after being answered. The
interview session was carried out in one morning during the study break which was about a week after the
quantitative data was collected. The duration of the interview was approximately 1 hour and it was audio-
taped and video-taped.
5. DATA ANALYSIS
The demographic data and the scores of the items of all components were analyzed using the statistical
package for the social science (SPSS) version 12. Data analysis of quantitative data was carried out as
explained below. Descriptive Statistics such as frequency, percentages and graphs such as pie charts and
bar charts were used to describe the respondents’ profile. Mean scores and standard deviation were
determined for all items of all components identified in this study. Grand mean was calculated as the
satisfaction index for all the seven components scrutinized in this study. Percentage pie charts were used
to depict the opinion of the students on the appropriate combination time slot for the blended learning
model. .The audio data recorded were coded and search for issues related to the overall satisfaction of the
blended learning course and the role of students in the blended learning.
6. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
C S S R 0 8’ 0 9 14 - 15 March 2009
C O N F E R E N C E ON S C I E N T I F I C & S O C I A L R E S E A R C H
Paper number: 5304740
The discussion begins with a short description of the respondent’s demographic characteristics. The
second section presents the respondents’ satisfaction level as well as the comments on their satisfaction
level from the interview. The last section discusses the contact hour for each blended learning component.
6.1 Demographic Characteristic
In this study, among 50 respondents, 25 (50%) male and 25 (50%) female respondents involved. From the
respondents’ achievement in Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) Modern Mathematics, 82.0% of the
respondents obtained Grade A, 14.0% of the respondents obtained Grade B and 4.0% of the respondents
obtained Grade C. Meanwhile in their Additional Mathematics result, most of the respondents (48.0%)
obtained grade C, only one (2.0%) respondent obtained grade A and nine of the respondents (18.0%)
obtained grade B, 16 of the respondents fail Additional Mathematics which 12 (24%) of the respondents
obtained grade D and four (8%) of the respondents achieved grade E.
For experience in using computer and online learning tools, 38 (76%) of the respondents had
experience in sending and receiving e-mail, 31 (62%) of the respondents had experience in word
processing, 35 (70%) of the respondents participated in online discussion boards before. Meanwhile,
among the respondents, 34 (68%) of them did participate in online chart room and 34 (64%) of the
respondents had experience in uploading and downloading files from the Internet. This shows that the
respondents are familiar with computer and online learning tools. Most of the respondents had access to
computer and Internet at the university (98%). 66%, 66% and 64% of the respondents had access to the
computer and Internet at the library, at the cyber Café and at home respectively.
6.2 Students’ Satisfaction Level on Blended Learning Model
Most of the respondents slightly agreed that the content in the blended learning system fitted their need in
the learning process ( x= 4.92) and that the blended learning provided them sufficient content ( x= 5.08).
Respondents are moderately agreed that the content provided in the system was useful ( x= 5.38) and up-
to-date ( x= 5.44). The overall mean on content is 5.21 with standard deviation which showed that
students were satisfied with the content. From the interview, all respondents seemed happy that they were
given a complete content. They revealed that they could read, download, print and share the contents of
the course anytime and anywhere. The face-to-face content complemented by the online component
makes it perfect for them. Respondents also liked the convenience provided in the blended learning mode.
One of them said: On the content provided, respondents also gave some comments to improve the content
component such as online example need to have very clear step by step solution, add animation in the
solution provided.
There were five items which measure students’ satisfaction level on learner Interface. Respondents in
the study slightly agreed that the blended learning system was easy to use ( x=5.36) and easy for them to
find content based on their need ( x= 5.28). They also slightly agreed that the system was stable ( x= 4.80)
and user-friendly ( x= 5.20). The overall mean of 5.15 with a standard deviation 1.201 showed that the
respondents were satisfied with the learner interface. From the interview, all respondents agreed on the
advantages in the five items above. They also gave their opinions of the design on the interface which was
not including in the items above. They felt that the design of the interface was not interesting and was too
traditional and suggested that it should be improved further. In their conversation, they also suggested
that the design of the interface to be changed more frequently so that it would be more interesting and will
attract them to study.
Feedback and assessment component consists of six items measuring the satisfaction level on
feedback and assessment. For this component, the respondents agreed that the blended learning system
responded to their requests fast enough ( x= 4.82), made it easy for them to evaluate their learning
performance ( x= 5.04), and provided testing results promptly ( x= 5.12). Respondents also agreed that
blended learning system provided secure testing environments ( x= 4.84) and the testing methods were
easy to understand ( x= 4.98) and fair ( x= 4.84). Overall, respondents were satisfied with the feedback and
assessment component (x= 4.94, s = 1.036). From the interview, respondents also commented that they
C S S R 0 8’ 0 9 14 - 15 March 2009
C O N F E R E N C E ON S C I E N T I F I C & S O C I A L R E S E A R C H
Paper number: 5304740
liked the immediate feedback that they got through in the forum interface. They felt that from the forum,
helped them to clear their doubts immediately.
There were six items measuring personalization. Respondents slightly agreed that the blended
learning system let them control their own learning progress ( x= 5.02), enabled them to learn the content
they needed ( x= 5.14), enables them to choose what they wanted to learn ( x= 5.16), recorded their learning
progress ( x= 5.16) and learning performance ( x= 4.92), and provided them the personalized learning
support ( x=4.94). Overall, the students were satisfied with the personalization component ( x= 5.06). The
respondents also gave their opinions on personalization in the interview session. They said that they were
very happy because they were free to learn at their own pace with their own style. They also learned the
subject anytime and anywhere.
Four items measured used to measure students’ satisfaction level on learning community.
Respondents slightly agreed that blended learning system made it easy for them to discuss questions with
their lecturers ( x=5.08) and other students (x=5.18), share what they learn (x=5.38) and enabled them to
access the shared content from the learning community ( x=5.34). The overall mean score of this
component is 5.25, which indicates that respondents were satisfied with the learning community
component. In the interview, respondents expressed satisfaction on this component. They said that the
forum gives them a place to share an interesting website and they can chart with their friends in the forum
to sharing their common interest.
Two items used to measure access component. Participates slightly agreed that the system was easy
( x=4.40) and fast to access ( x=4.40). The overall mean score of this component was 4.39 with the
standard deviation 1.503. This implies that respondents were satisfied with the access. Through interview
the researcher found that the respondents were satisfied with the access but feel unhappy with the server
problem and the internet connection in the campus.
There are three items measuring overall satisfaction. Respondents in the study are satisfied with the
blended learning system ( x=5.06) and agree that blended learning system used in MAT081 is successful
( x=5.18) and also agree that using blended learning systems to enhance their educational experience is
valuable (x=5.34). Overall, students are satisfied with the blended learning system ( x=5.19). The
qualitative data also shows that students are satisfied with blended learning system.
Majority (45%) of the respondents prefer 2 hours of online learning and 3 hours of face-to-face
learning. There are (39%) of the respondents prefer 1 hours of online learning and 4 hours of face-to-face
learning. All the respondents prefer at least an hour of online learning. This clearly shows that all the
respondents prefer blended learning compare with traditional face-to-face learning. The quantitative
finding above is verified in the interview session. From the interview session, 9 out of 12 respondents
prefer 3 hours of face-to-face learning and 2 hours of online learning per week. There are two students
who suggest the 4 hours of face-to-face learning and 1 hour of online learning per week to be maintained.
Only one student suggests that the best contact hours are 3½ hours of face-to-face learning and 1½ hours
of online learning per week.
7. CONCLUSION
The study found that students were satisfied with the blended learning delivery mode. They were
generally satisfied with the components of content, learner interface, feedback and assessment,
personalization and learning community assessed in this research. However, students were not very happy
with the access to the Moodle system which was not as fast as it was supposed to be and this was
compounded by the fact that the internet connection was frequently down.
8. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The study focuses on the participants’ satisfaction levels on blended learning. Below are some issues that
need further investigation.
C S S R 0 8’ 0 9 14 - 15 March 2009
C O N F E R E N C E ON S C I E N T I F I C & S O C I A L R E S E A R C H
Paper number: 5304740
i. Is that any significant difference in academic performance between students following blended
learning and students following traditional face-to-face learning in MAT081?
ii. Does the implementation of Blended learning course in MAT081 improve the students’ academic
performance?
iii. Does good training in IT influence the students’ satisfaction levels on the blended learning
course?
iv. Does the contact hours between online learning and face-to-face learning influence students’
satisfaction levels on blended learning?
REFERENCE
Barnum, C., & Paarmaann, W. (2002). Bringing induction to the teacher: A blended learning model. The
Journal of Services marketing, 30(2).
Bersin, J. (2004). The Blended Learning Book: Best Practices, Proven Methodologies, and Lessons
Learned. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Black, G. (2002). A comparison of traditional, online and hybrid methods of course delivery. Journal of
Business Administration Online, 1(1).
Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Teachnology Today, 8.
Iron, L. R., Keel, R., & Bielema, C. L. (2002). Blended learning and learner satisfaction: keys to user
acceptance? USDLA Journal, 47.
Osguthorpe, R. T. G., C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definition and directions. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
Ron, H. (2001). The second e-learning wave. Training, 38(9), 96.
Singh, R., & Reed, C. (2001). A White Paper: Achieving Success with Blended Learning: Centra Software.
Zenger, J., & Uehlein, C. (2001). Why blended learning will win: The lion and the lamb lie down together.
Training and Development, 55(8), 55-60.