Language Centre Cover Sheet

Please fill in all the blanks below for your assignment:

Full Name (in pinyin) Wang Ke English Name (optional)

Angela

Student ID Number 1507394 Class (e.g. Y1_BUS_A1)

Y1-D1/06

Programme EAP022 Module Code EAP022

Assignment TitleStudents’ perceptions of blended learning environment and their preferences in particular learning environment with respect to academic performance

Submission Deadline 2016/04/29 EAP Tutor’s Name Jennifer Howard

Which draft is this? (e.g. first draft, final draft)

Final draftFinal Word Count

2407

If you agree to let the University use your work anonymously for teaching and learning purposes, please type your full name in pinyin again here.

Wang Ke

I certify that I have read and understood the University’s Policy for dealing with Plagiarism, Collusion and the Fabrication of Data (available on ICE: https://ice.xjtlu.edu.cn/ice/course/view.php?id=1029 ). With reference to this policy, I certify that:

My work does not contain any instances of plagiarism and/or collusion.

My work does not contain any fabricated data.

By uploading my assignment onto ICE, I formally declare that all the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Scoring – For Tutor Use

Stage of Initial TF Features Achieved

LM Features Achieved

TF LM Final

1

Marking s Score Score Score(A-D) (E-J) (A-D) (E-J)

1st - red pen

Moderation – green pen

The original mark has been accepted by the moderator (please circle as appropriate):

Y / N

Data entry and score calculation have been checked by another tutor (please circle):

Y

2nd (if required) - green pen

For Academic Office UsePossible Academic Dishonesty (please circle as

appropriate)

Date Received Days LateLate

Penalty Plagiarism:

- Minor- Major

Collusion (major)

Data:

- Embellishment (minor)

- Fabrication (major)

Students: Please start your assignment on the next page.

2

Students’ perceptions of blended learning environment and their preferences in particular learning environment with respect to academic performance

AbstractThis research aims to investigate students’ perceptions of blended learning environment and their preferences in particular learning environment with respect to academic performance. The research was conducted on Year one students in an international university. A questionnaire was applied to collect data. Results show students were satisfied with blended learning environment for easier access to learning materials, increased interaction and more solid course understanding, but remarked negatively on engagement. Also, evidence revealed that students’ preferences had minor relationship with their academic performance, but differed according to learning patterns. In particular, students’ help-seeking behavior changes under blended learning environment in a complicated way. Therefore, the university could help enhance students’ learning strategies and self-regulation to prepare them to adapt to blended learning environment.

IntroductionBackground:The universal use of technology has unavoidably impacted higher education system, offering new pedagogical approaches for learners through online resources (Ioannou et al., 2015). Therefore, in most universities, where students are supported by web-based instruction out of class and are meanwhile involved in synchronous face-to-face learning environment, an integration of online learning environment (OLE) and traditional face-to-face learning environment (FLE), also referred to as blended learning environment (BLE) is flourishing (Farley, Jain & Thomson, 2011 cited in Owston, York & Murtha, 2012).

3

According to Chang and Fisher (2003 cited in Gecer, 2013), students’ satisfaction level in learning environment is significant for them to acquire knowledge. Also, since students start forming their learning habits once they enter a new environment, their first year in the university would lay the foundation for their following study (Huon et al., 2007). Hence, the investigation into students’ perspectives of learning environments can be advisory comments for the university to provide necessary support for students.

Published research has demonstrated that students have greater satisfaction with blended learning environment due to its advantages combined with online and face-to-face learning, including increased flexibility, abundance of learning materials, and higher learner autonomy (Farley, Jain & Thomson, 2011 cited in Owston, York & Murtha, 2013). Nonetheless, some experts argued technology use in university might hinder the implementation of pedagogies. Bliuc et al. (2011) proposed that students tend to think in a more critical way in face-to-face learning than in online learning, because they appear to consider online discussion as a required task but not a valued learning component.

Also, since most Chinese students are only exposed to face-to-face learning environment in their earlier study experience, the shift of learning environment can produce changes in their learning patterns and practices especially with the increase of technology use in education (Huon et al., 2007). Academic help-seeking is acknowledged to be a useful learning strategy positively related to students’ academic performance, but prior study indicated that university students avoid using it in face-to-face learning environment, mainly because seeking help might be perceived as lack of competence. Such concern would be relieved under OLE, so it is reasonable to hypothesize students’ help-seeking behavior would change under OLE (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2004).

4

On the basis of the consensus of experts that students’ attitudes towards learning environment essentially influence the efficacy of learning, students’ perspectives should be taken seriously (Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2008). The research was conducted in Xi’an Jiao-tong Liverpool University (XJTLU). XJTLU is an international joint university founded by Xi’an Jiao-tong University and the University of Liverpool. Students here receive western education mode and can enjoy a relatively more relaxing study atmosphere.

Aims and hypotheses: Described in this paper is a research aiming at analyzing XJTLU Year1 students’ perspectives of blended learning environment and their preferences in particular learning environment with respect to academic performance.

Three hypotheses are made in this study:

1. High academic achievers are more satisfied with blended learning environment.

2. Online learning environment is more accepted for high achievers to grasp knowledge and interact with others.

3. Low achievers prefer online learning environment when they seek help.

MethodSample:The research was conducted in Xi’an Jiao-tong Liverpool University. 25 respondents were randomly chosen and were all Year1 Chinese students who mainly experienced face-to-face learning environment before they entered the university. 15 students scoring higher than 70 last semester were classified into high achievers and nine scoring lower than 70 were seen as low achievers.

Materials:The questionnaire (see appendix) containing three parts and 16 items was designed to carry out the research. There were one demographic question, six Likert-style

5

questions, three dichotomous questions and six multiple choices questions. Questions in first part included students’ perceptions of convenience, course understanding, interaction with tutors and students, and engagement under BLE, all of which were factors that might affect students’ perspectives of learning environment (Poon, 2012). The second part investigated students’ preferences in particular learning environment for different learning patterns, including self-study, tutorials and collaboration with peers. The last part was concerned students’ opinions on help-seeking.

Procedure:The questionnaire was piloted before it was applied to use. By face-to-face interviewing, flaws in the questionnaire were revealed. For example, without providing necessary background information, respondents’ choices for preferred learning environment might not base on the intention of improving academic performance, but of ridding suppression. The questionnaire was modified basing on feedbacks collected in piloting.

Respondents were interviewed face-to-face and were given the explanation of each learning environment in advance to avoid misunderstanding, then data were collected and analyzed using EXCEL and presented in the form of tables, figures and verbal descriptions.

ResultsHypothesis1:Students’ satisfaction of blended learning environment was evaluated by answering five-point Likert-type questions in four aspects: convenience in acquiring learning materials, course understanding, interaction with tutors and students and engagement. Table1 shows the percentages of students’ choices. Except for engagement, students’ perspectives towards other three aspects were mainly positive, which partly confirmed the hypotheses. Data revealed unobvious differences between choices of high and low achievers. It is possible to imply that

6

generally XJTLU Year1 students were satisfied with blended learning environment regardless of academic performances.

Convenience Course understanding

Interaction Engagement

Percentage

Choices

High achieve

rs

Low achieve

rs

High achiever

s

Low achiever

s

High achiever

s

Low achieve

rs

High achievers

Low achiever

sStrongly

agree73% 78% 13% 19% 33% 44% 0 0

Agree 27% 22% 80% 73% 60% 48% 0 0

Nurture 0 0 7% 8% 7% 8% 7% 11%

Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 73% 78%

Strongly disagree

0 0 0 0 0 0 20% 11%

Table1: Students’ perceptions of different aspects of blended learning environment

Hypothesis2:The questionnaire asked about students’ preferred learning environment for self-study, tutorials and collaboration with peers. Overall, about two thirds of students for both high and low achievers believed that self-study under OLE rather than lectures under FLE contributed more to their grasp of knowledge. Further to self-study, Figure1 illustrates the percentages of students’ habits of independent study under OLE. 67% high achievers reported that they usually accelerated their learning paces by online resources, and so did 65% low achievers. Correspondingly, those using online tools also had a habit of further study online out of class.

7

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% 67% 67%65% 65%

Independent study under OLE

high achievers (15 in total) low achievers (9 in total)

Figure1: Independent study under OLE

Students’ choices were quite reverse for attending tutorials. 14 out of 15 high achievers and eight out of nine low achievers preferred face-to-face tutorials. In addition, all respondents said they would prefer FLE to collaborate with peers. The difference of choices between high and low achievers was not obvious, but apparently their choices changed with different learning patterns, which negated the hypothesis.

Students’ perceptions of self-regulation was similar to that of engagement. Figure2 illustrates over a half respondents for both high and low achievers disagreed with better self-regulation under OLE. The coincidence between students’ self-regulation and engagement might indicated some links.

8

strongly agree6%

agree24%

neutral18%disagree

10%

strongly disagree

42%

Pe rce pti ons of se l f - re gu -l ati on unde r OLE for high

achi e ve rs

strongly agree11%

neu-tral24%

disagree12%

strongly disagree

53%

Pe rce pti ons of se l f - re gu -l ati on unde r OLE for l ow

achi e ve rs

Figure2: Students’ perceptions of gaining better self-regulation under OLE

Hypothesis3:24 out of 25 respondents believed the positive effect on their academic performance of seeking help from tutors, nonetheless, the frequency of help-seeking failed to raise correspondently. Figure3 depicts the percentages of students’ frequency of seeking help, in which outer and inner circles represents low and high achievers respectively. 47% high achievers and 44% low achievers sought help from tutors face-to-face more than once a week, and a substantial portion of students never asked for help. Moreover, only five respondents considered it easier to express questions clearly in an online format.

9

47%

33%

7%13%

44%22%

22% 12%

Frequency of seeking help from tutors

at least once a week

about once a week

about once a semester

never

Outer circle: Low achieversInner circle: High achievers

Figure3: Percentages of students’ frequency of seeking help

Figure4 illustrates some factors that might influence help-seeking behavior and the percentages of students who would consider them before seeking help. Both high and low achievers cared much about promptness, convenience, and the credibility of answers. Contrary to earlier research, only 13% of high achievers and a slight more for low achievers, 22%, worried about others’ opinions. Seemingly threat of being perceived as incompetent is not what impedes students to seek help, but from the data it is difficult to explain why students avoid seek help.

10

promptness convenience credibility of answers worries about others' opinions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

60%

80%

58%

13%

56%

78%

56%

22%

Percentage of respondents who will consider these factors when seek-ing help

high achievers (15 in total) low achievers (9 in total)

Factors

perc

enta

ge

Figure4: Percentages of respondents who will consider these factors when seeking help

DiscussionResults pertaining to students’ opinions of blended learning environment both negate and support the first hypothesis. Students were satisfied with easier access to learning materials, better course understanding and interaction with tutors and students under BLE, and engagement was the only exception. While the results contradict to the mainstream viewpoints on students’ engagement in BLE, in fact it is possible that students show lower participation under OLE than FLE (Caspi, Chajut & Saporta, 2008). In this research, students’ choices were made based on the comparison between FLE which they experienced in high school and BLE which they are currently exposed to, thus, the enhancement of technology use in learning could be challenging for Year1 students. Students might encounter problems like independent learning or simply lacking in necessary computer literacy skills, consequently failing to get involved in online or blended courses (Banerjee, 2011). Additionally, Sun and Rueda (2012) maintained that students’ self-regulation was closely correlated to their engagement, so students’ negative remarks on self-regulation under OLE could explain their discontent of engagement.

11

With respect to the second research question dealing with students’ preferences in particular learning environment, evidence show that students’ preferences appeared to have minor connection with their academic performance, but to be related to learning patterns. Students preferred an online learning environment for independent study, while face-to-face learning environment seemed to be more accepted for tutorials and collaboration with peers. Published resources have demonstrated that in today’s higher education system, the role of tutors has evolved from a knowledge-impactor to a guide who follows and facilitates students’ learning process (Gecer, 2013). In consistence with the statement, results show that students overwhelmingly attributed their grasp of knowledge to self-study under OLE rather than lectures under FLE, which seemingly reveals a transition from teacher-centered learning to student-centered learning. It is demonstrated by Chen et al. (2015) that unlike teacher-centered learning where students passively absorb knowledge, student-centered learning requires students to be equipped with critical thinking, and it can also enhance students’ intrinsic motivation. Moreover, the literature suggested that blended learning environment can promote self-paced and self-directed learning (Tomas et al., 2015). These assumptions could interpret why a high portion of respondents reported that they would further their study and adjust learning paces through online resources.

Students’ preference in FLE for tutorials aligns with previous research reporting that face-to-face tutorials are helpful in strengthening students’ learning ability and addressing their problems (Smyth et al., 2012). Nevertheless, students’ perception towards collaboration with peers under OLE was contradictory to most statements that students would take positive attitudes to collaborative learning in an online-supported learning environment (Azis, 2013). It seems fair to say that both tutorials and collaboration with peers can be regarded as interaction with others. Lack of self-regulation revealed in the results could be the reason why students prefer interaction under FLE over OLE, as Cho and Kim (2013) claimed that self-regulation is required to attain effective interaction in an online setting. Furthermore, according to Cho and Kim (2013), instructors’ scaffolding can significantly impact

12

students’ self-regulation of interaction under online environment, but in this experiment it is uncertain to imply whether tutors gave sufficient scaffolding in students’ interaction process. In all, it is indicated that students’ choices for preferred learning environment reflect their intention for better academic performance by matching their personalized learning styles and avoiding environment that might hinder their progress (Clayton, Blumberg & Auld, 2010).

Results for the last research question dealing with students’ preferred learning environment when seeking help suggested that both high and low achievers realized the positive influence of help-seeking but avoided seeking help under either learning environment. Earlier study set on conventional learning environment demonstrated that students fear their need for help would appear inferior to their peers (Dunn, Rakes & Rakes, 2014). This could explain that a higher percentage of low achievers thought others’ opinions could be decisive factors when they attempted to seek help. Nevertheless, it cannot fully explain the behavior of respondents in this study since for both high and low achievers, worries about peers’ opinions when seeking help is the last they would consider among four provided factors. Furthermore, communication techniques under OLE allow students seek help covertly, which partly reduce students’ concern for embarrassment. However, it generates a problem that expressing questions in an online environment could not be as easy as that with the help of instructors face-to-face, which was verified in this research (Mahasneh, Sowan & Nassar, 2012). Also, Dunn, Rakes and Rakes (2014) have found that self-regulation has positive association with academic help-seeking for both online and traditional learning. Students’ negative comment on their self-regulation might be responsible for their reluctance of seeking help as well.

ConclusionSummary:In this research, students’ perspectives of blended learning environment and preferences in particular learning environment were examined with respect to

13

academic performance. Three hypotheses are: 1) High academic achievers are more satisfied with blended learning environment; 2) High achievers prefer online learning environment in the process of grasping knowledge; 3) Online learning environment is more accepted for lower achievers to seek help for higher academic performance.

Results suggested that overall both high and low achievers were satisfied with BLE except for engagement. Also, students’ preferences appeared unobvious connection with academic performance, but could be related to learning patterns. Corresponding choices of preferred learning environment were made to match students’ learning styles and optimize their learning efficacy for different learning patterns. In particular, the evidence implied that although online environment provides a means of both convenience and promptness that students value much, it seemed not to critically increase the frequency of students’ help-seeking behavior.

Final comments:An implication of this research is that while generally students are satisfied with blended learning environment, for most students, the problem is low self-regulation under an online environment. Therefore, it is suggested the cultivation of students’ self-regulation should be emphasized by the university. Also, the university could provide training about computer skills to ease the difficulty in adaptation of online learning for students. Since it is noticeable that students’ self-regulation greatly affects their perspectives and behavior, further research should be done to investigate the relationship.

Limitations:However, this conclusion is tempered by several limitations. First, the sample size of students was not large enough to obtain a widely common conclusion. Second, it is not clear whether students reported their grades honestly because some students might consider the question about their academic performance sensitive. Third, this research focuses only on how students with different academic performance

14

perceived on learning environments, so it is possible that students’ practical action fails to correspond with their opinions. Any of these factors may influence the objectivity and accuracy of this research.

ReferencesAkkoyunlu, B.& Soylu, M.Y. (2008) ‘A study of student's perceptions in a blended

learning environment based on different learning styles’, Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), pp.183-193.

Azis, Y.M. (2013) 'the Effectiveness of Blended Learning', Prior Knowledge, 2(2), pp.106–116.

Banerjee, G. (2011) ‘Blended Environments: Learning Effectiveness and Student Satisfaction at a Small College in Transition’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(1) pp.8-19.

Bliuc, A.M., Ellis, R.A., Goodyear, P. & Piggotte, L. (2011) ‘A blended learning Approach to teaching foreign policy: Student experiences of learning through face-to-face and online discussion and their relationship to academic performance’, Computers and Education, 56(3), pp.856–864.

Caspi, A., Chajut, E. & Saporta, K. (2008) ‘Participation in class and in online discussions: Gender differences’, Computers and Education, 50(3), pp.718-724.

Chen, J. et al. (2015) ‘A new approach for laboratory exercise of pathophysiology in China based on student-centered learning’, Advances in physiology education, 39(2), pp.116–119.

Cho, M.& Kim, B. (2013) ‘Students' self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning environments’, Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), pp.69-75.

Clayton, K., Blumberg, F. & Auld, D.P. (2010) ‘The relationship between motivation, learning strategies and choice of environment whether traditional or including an online component’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), pp.349–364.

15

Dabbagh, N.& Kitsantas, A. (2004) 'Supporting Self-Regulation in Student-Centered Web-Based Learning Environments ', International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), pp.40-47.

Dunn, K.E., Rakes, G.C.& Rakes, T.A. (2014) ' Influence of academic self-regulation, critical thinking, and age on online graduate students’ academic help-seeking', Distance Education, 35(1), pp.75-89.

Gecer, A. (2013) 'Lecturer-Student Communication in Blended Learning Environments', Educational Consultancy and Research Center, 13(1), pp.362-367.

Huon, G., Spehar, G., Adam, P.& Rifkin, W. (2007) 'Resource use and academic performance among first year psychology students', Higher Education, 53(1), pp.1-27.

Ioannou, A. et al. (2015) ‘Creative Multimodal Learning Environments and Blended Interaction for Problem-Based Activity in HCI Education’, TechTrends, 59(2), pp.47-56.

Mahasneh, R.A., Sowan, A.K. & Nassar, Y.H. (2012) ‘Academic Help-Seeking in Online and Face-to-Face Learning Environments’, E-Learning and Digital Media, 9(2) pp.196-210.

Owston, R., York, D. & Murtha, S. (2013) ‘Student Perceptions and Achievement in a University Blended Learning Strategic Initiative’, Internet and Higher Education, 18, pp.38-46.

Poon, J. (2012) ‘Use of blended learning to enhance the student learning experience and engagement in property education’, Property Management, 30, pp.129–156.

Smyth, S., Houghton, C., Cooney, A.& Casey, D. (2012) ‘Students' experiences of blended learning across a range of postgraduate programs’, Nurse Education Today, 32(4), pp.464–468.

Sun, J.C.-Y. & Rueda, R. (2012) ‘Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education’, British

Journal of Educational Technology, 43, pp.191-204.16

Tomas, L., Lasen, M., Field, E. & Skamp, K. (2015) ‘Promoting Online Students' Engagement and Learning in Science and Sustainability Preservice Teacher Education’, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(11) pp.78-107.

Appendix: QuestionnaireDefinition: Online learning environment (OLE) includes various online resources both in campus like online library, online homework, online discussion board and email and out of campus like MOOC, TED and GOOGLE. Face-to-face learning environment (FLE) focuses on physical interaction including lectures, tutorials, visiting tutors’ offices for help and so on. Blended learning environment is a combination of OLE and FLE.

Scores of your major course in last semester:

0-70□ 70-100□

1. I think it is more convenient to acquire learning materials under BLE. Strongly agree□ Agree□ Neutral□ Disagree□ Strongly disagree□

2. I think I can get more solid understanding of my course content under BLE. Strongly agree□ Agree□ Neutral□ Disagree□ Strongly disagree□

3. I think the increase of interaction with tutors and students has positive effect on my academic performance. Strongly agree□ Agree□ Neutral□ Disagree□ Strongly disagree□

4. I feel like my amount of interaction with tutors and other students increased under BLE.

Strongly agree□ Agree□ Neutral□ Disagree□ Strongly disagree□5. I feel more engaged under BLE.

Strongly agree□ Agree□ Neutral□ Disagree□ Strongly disagree□

6. Which do you think contributes more to your understanding of course content? Lectures under face-to-face learning environment□ Self-study mainly under online environment□

7. Which learning environment do you prefer to collaborate with peers? Online□ Face-to-face□ No preference□

17

8. In order to improve your academic achievement, which learning environment do you prefer to attend tutorials? Online□ Face-to-face□ No preference□

9. Do you have a habit of further study through resources out of class like MOOC, GOOGLE? Yes□ No□

10. Do you use online resources to accelerate your learning process? Yes□ No□ Usually I cannot exceed the arranged process□

11. Under OLE, I think I gain a better self-regulation compared with FLE. Strongly agree□ Agree□ Neutral□ Disagree□ Strongly disagree□

12. I think seeking help from tutors help me get better academic performance.

Yes□ No□

13. How often do you seek help from your tutor face-to-face? At least once a week□ Once a month□ Once a semester□ Never□

14. Do you think it easier to express your question clearly through emails or online discussion in writing form? Yes□ No□

15. Which factors do you think should be considered when you seek for help? Promptness□ Convenience□ Credibility of answers□ Worry about others opinions□

18