International Journal of Education, Science and Social Sciences

Reviews

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2024)

Gap Analysis in Blended Learning Studies. A Literature Review

Published
2024-08-19

Abstract

The blended learning approach is new and indispensable in the wake of disruptive technologies and pandemics. The liability of newness has made the blended learning approach suffer resistance due to gaps in knowledge. The purpose of this study is to map research gaps in blended learning as a curriculum delivery approach in public universities. A desktop review approach was used to analyze peer-reviewed articles and reports. The researcher used the Google Scholar database to identify legible literature. Using the Google search engine, 46 documents that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. The results of the study identified disagreement among scholars on the definition of blended learning, demographic factors, user perceptions, academic performance and theoretical underpinnings. The synthesis also found a scarcity of studies on the use of blended learning for research supervision, policy supporting blended learning, and regional role models in implementing blended learning. In conclusion, the study found blended learning an appropriate approach for the 21st-century classroom and its successful implementation depended on the commitment of the government, universities, and stakeholders to bridge the gaps. Based on the findings, the study recommended further studies on the conceptualization of blended learning, demographic factors, academic outcomes, and theoretical framework. The study also recommends that the Commission for University Education develop a policy to guide the implementation of blended learning in public universities.

References

  1. Abbaca-Tuguic, L. (2021). Challenges of the new normal: students' attitude, readiness and adaptability to blended learning modality,6(2). International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 6(2), 443-450.
  2. Adel, A., & Dayan, J. (2020). Towards an intelligent blended system of learning activities model for New Zealand institutions: An investigative approach. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 1-14.
  3. Aggarwal, R., & Ranganathan, P. (2017). Common pitfalls in statistical analysis linear regression analysis. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 8(2)., 100-102.
  4. Alavudeen, S. S., Easwaran, V., Mir, J. I., Shahrani, S. M., Aseeri, A. A., Khan, N. A., . . . Asiri, A. A. (2021). The influence of COVID-19-related psychological and demographic variables on the effectiveness of e-learning among healthcare students in the Southern region of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 29, 775-780.
  5. Alsalhi, N. R., Al-Qatawneh, S., Eltahir, M., & Aqel, K. (2021). Does blended learning improve the academic achievement of undergraduate students in the mathematics course? A case study in higher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Sciences and Technology Education, 17(4), 1-14.
  6. Alsalhi, N. R., Eltahir, M. E., & Al-Qatawneh, S. S. (2019). The effect of blended learning on the achievement of ninth-grade students in science and their attitudes towards its use. Heliyon, 5., 1-11.
  7. Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Introduction. In V. A. Anfara, & N. T. Mertz, Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1-6). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  8. Aristovnik, A., Kerzic, D., Tomazevic, N., & Umek, L. (2016). Demographic determinants of the usefulness of e-learning tools among students of public administration. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(4), 299-304.
  9. Aristovnik, A., Tomazevic, N., Kerzic, D., & Umek, L. (2017). The impact of demographic factors on selected aspects of e-learning in higher education. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 114-121.
  10. Ashraf, M. A., Yang, M., Zhang, Y., Denden, M., Tlili, A., Liu, J., . . . Burgos, D. (2021). A systematic review of systematic reviews on blended learning: Trends, gaps, and future directions. Psychology Research and Behaviour Management, 1523-1541.
  11. Banihashem, S. K., & Aliakadi, K. (2017). Connectivism: Implications for distance education. Interdisciplinary Journal for Virtual Learning Medicine Science, 8(3)., 1-7.
  12. Barihesham, S. K., & Aliabadi, K. (2017). Connectivism: Implications for distance education. Interdisciplinary Journal Virtual Lern Medical Science, 8(3), 1-7.
  13. Boelens, R., VanLear, S., DeWever, B., & Elen, J. (2015). Blended learning in adult education: towards a definition of blended learning.
  14. Boyraz, S., & Ocak, G. (2021). Connectivism: A literature review for the new pathway of pandemic driven education. International Journal Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 6(3), 1122-1130.
  15. Cifta, B. (2020). The effect of blended learning on academic achievement and attitudes at social studies courses. Open Journal for Educational Research, 4(2), 143-156.
  16. Davis, F. (1986). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirical Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Cambridge, MA, USA: Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management.
  17. Dijkstra, W., & Goeman, K. (2020). A European maturity model for blended education. EADTU.
  18. Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning. Let's get beyond the hype, E-learning.
  19. Dube, T., Eck, R. V., & Zuva, T. (2020). Review of technology adoption models and theories to measure readiness and acceptable use of technology in a business organization. Journal of Information Technology and Digital World, 2(4)., 207-212.
  20. El-Refae, G. A., Kaba, A., & Eletter, S. (2021). The impact of demographic characteristics of academic performance: Face-to-face learning versus distance learning implemented to prevent the spread of COVID-19. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(1)., 91-111.
  21. Ferneding, K. (2009). The discourse of inevitability and the forging of an emergent social vision: Technological diffusion and the dialectic of educational reform discourse. In W. M. Reynolds, & J. A. Webber, Expanding curriculum theory, Dis/positions and lines of flight. (pp. 47-65). New York: Routledge.
  22. Gaebel, M., Zhang, T., Stoeber, H., & Morrisroe, A. (2021). Survey report digitally enhanced learning and teaching in European higher education institutions. Brussels: European University Association.
  23. Galvis, A. H. (2018). Supporting decision-making processes on blended learning in higher education: Literature and good practices review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(25)., 1-38.
  24. Garrison, R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education,7., 95-105.
  25. Goldie, J. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for a digital age? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064-1069.
  26. Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. Moore, Handbook of distance education. 3rd edition (pp. 333-350). New York: Routledge.
  27. Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your "House.". Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice and Research, 4(2), 12-27.
  28. Hadidi, R., & Power, D. J. (2020). Technology adoption and disruption - Organizational implications for the future of work. Journal of the Midwest Association for Information Systems, 1(1), 1-8.
  29. Iqbal, M. A. (2020). Applications of regression techniques with their advantages and disadvantages. Electron Magazine, 11-19.
  30. Kaniaru, D., Karani, A., Mirie, W., & Nyangina. (2019). Utilization of blended approach mode on teaching and learning for undergraduates nurses in Kenya - post-intervention outcome. Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences, 8(3), 49-57.
  31. Kanuka, H., & Rourke, L. (2013). Using blended learning strategies to address teaching development needs: How does Canada compare? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(3)., 19-35.
  32. Kaur, M. (2013). Blended learning. Its challenges and future. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 93(1)., 612-617.
  33. Khechine, H., Lakhal, S., Pascot, D., & Bytha, A. (2014). UTAUT model for blended learning: The role of gender and age in the intention to use Webinars. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-learning and Learning Objects, 10., 33-52.
  34. Kintu, J. M., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between student characteristics, design features, and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(7).
  35. Kizito, R. N. (2016). Connectivism in learning activity design: Implications for pedagogically-based technology adoption in African higher education contexts. International Review of Research on Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2)., 19-40.
  36. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3)., 1-13.
  37. Loeng, S. (2018). Various ways of understanding the concept of andragogy. Cogent Education, 5(1).
  38. Marunic, G., & Glazar, V. (2015). Challenges of blended learning. Scientific Proceedings XXIII International Scientific-Technical Conference, 3, 61-64.
  39. Mattar, J. (2018). Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic, experiential and anchored learning. RIED, 2(2), 199-213.
  40. Merriam, S. B. (2017). Adult learning theory: Evolution and future directions. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 2(1)., 21-37.
  41. Miheso-O'Connor, M. K., Bwire, A. M., & Mwangisi, I. M. (2020). Supervisors' perceptions of blended approach for graduate thesis supervision: The case of Kenyatta University. Emerging techniques and applications for blended learning in K-20 classrooms, 246-267.
  42. Mitchell, D., Shiu, W., Enemark, S., & Kavanagh, J. (2020). On blended learning and the benefits for surveying education, professional development, and lifelong learning. Amsterdam: Smart Surveyors for Land and Water Management.
  43. Muthuraman, S. (2018). Quality of blended learning education in higher education. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 6(4)., 48-87.
  44. Mwendwa, N. K., & Syomwene, A. K. (2019). Government support on ICT integration in public primary schools curriculum in Kitui County, Kenya. Journal of Technology & Socio-Economic Development, 8(1), 150-158.
  45. Nazara, S. (2016). Students' attitudes towards face-to-face and blended learning instructions in English class. Proceedings of EED Collegiate Forum 2015-2018, 80-94.
  46. Oduor, H. N., Ayiro, L., & Boit, J. (2018). Teachers' gender influence on adoption and use of information and communication technology in public secondary schools in Kenya. African Journal of Education, Science and Technology, 4(3), 236-243.
  47. Okaz, A. A. (2015). Integrating blended learning in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 186., 600-603.
  48. Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(43)., 879-910.
  49. Pavla, S., Hana, V., & Jan, V. (2015). Blended learning: Promising strategic alternative in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 1245-1254.
  50. Porter, W., Graham, C., Spring, K., & Welch, R. K. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 185-195.
  51. Pozzi, M. (Undated). Connectivism and university: Educational synergies. New Perspectives in Science Education, 1-6.
  52. Ramdhani, A., Ramdhani, M. A., & Amin, A. S. (2016). Writing a literature review research paper: A step-by-step approach. International Journal of Basics and Applied Sciences, 3(1), 47-56.
  53. Reynolds, W. M., & Webber, J. A. (2009). Introduction: Curriculum Dis/positions. In W. M. Reynolds, & W. M. Webber,
  54. Expanding curriculum theory. Dis/positions and lines of flight (pp. 1-19). New York: Routledge.
  55. Rinehardt-cline, M. (2018). The effects of blended learning on student achievement interaction levels and online readiness skills in high school social studies classroom. Charlotte: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina.
  56. Sacher, M., Sacher, M., & Vaughan, N. (2014). A blended approach to Canadian First Nations education. International Conference e-learning.
  57. Sahin, M. (2012). Pros and cons of connectivism as a learning theory. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 2(4), 437-455.
  58. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research methods for business. A skill-building approach. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
  59. Shadiev, R., Zhang, H. Z., Wu, T. T., & Huang, M. Y. (2020). Review of studies on recognition technologies and their applications used to assist learning and instructions. Educational Technology & Society.
  60. Shraim, K., & Khlaif, N. Z. (2010). An e-learning approach to secondary education in Palestine: Opportunities and challenges. Information Technology for Development, 16(3), 159-173.
  61. Shrivastava, A. (2018). Using connectivism theory and technology for knowledge creation in cross-cultural communication. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 1-16.
  62. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43., 51-54.
  63. Taherdoost, H. (2018). A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manufacturing, 22, 960-967.
  64. Tukamuhabwa, E., Kishabale, B., & Lubaale, G. (2024). SESEMAT Pedagogical Approaches and Physics Teacher Effectiveness in Kigezi Sub-Region, Uganda. Journal of Research in Education and Technology, 2(1), 1-13.
  65. Turpin, C. M. (2018). Blended learning and its effect on student achievement: An action research study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of South Carolina.
  66. UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 Educational disruption and response. Paris: UNESCO.
  67. Utecht, J., & Keller, D. (2019). Becoming relevant again: Applying connectivism learning theory to today's classrooms.
  68. Critical Questions in Education, 10(2)., 108-121.
  69. Wallace, L., & Young, J. (2010). Implementing blended learning policy implications for universities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(4), 1-12.
  70. Winarto, P. M., & Tambunan, A. (2019). Students' acceptance of blended learning implementation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280-1286.
  71. Young, J., Nzegwu, F., Schaeffler, V., Chiriyankandath, J., Khandoker, F., Calamassi, S., . . . Ikiara, L. (2021). Blended learning in universities in East Africa: Lessons from the PEBL partnership. Nairobi: The Association of Commonwealth Universities.
  72. Zoller, K., & Harrison, B. (2007). The Advanced Facilitation Skills Course Student Workbook. CA Commission on POST.

Similar Articles

1-10 of 14

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Copyright © 2024 All rights reserved by International Journal of Education, Science and Social Sciences
ijessonline.com