Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of blended learning and learners’ characteristics on students’ competence: An empirical evidence in learning oriental music

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Blended learning emerged as the most popular instructional design strategy in the field of education since last decade to present date. In fact, it is well acknowledged that blended learning approach significantly elevate students’ engagement and competency in learning process. Despite immense potentiality, many countries are still lag behind adopting this instructional design, such as Sri Lanka. Therefore, the primary aims of this study are two fold, (a) to investigate the effect of blended learning and learners’ characteristics on students’ competence and (b) to investigate the effectiveness of blended learning in teaching Oriental Music. This study mainly carried out among the senior secondary schools students at Colombo, Sri Lanka. A mixed methods, experimental and survey, were carried out to test the effectiveness of blended learning and identifying the important factors for enhancing students’ competence in learning Oriental Music. Results of independent sample t-test confirmed that blended learning is effective in terms of improving students’ performance in learning Oriental Music. Similarly, regression analysis confirmed that attitude and motivation are the two most important determinants for improving students’ competence. This study fulfilled an existing research gap by utilizing blended learning to teach highly traditional abstract art. Results of the study contributes to the curriculum designing field with novel ideas to adapt in hybrid instructions to teach secondary level students effectively. The curriculum designers will make use of these findings during innovation and future researcher would be benefitted to overlook more possible platforms to deliver music instructions. It will help them to understand how their set objectives have been achieved in technology integrations and seek for improvement where necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmad, N., & Al-Khanjari, Z. (2011). Effect of Moodle on learning: an Oman perception. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC), 1(4), 746–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akyüz, H. İ., & Samsa, S. (2009). The effects of blended learning environment on the critical thinking skills of students. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 1(1), 1744–1748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Qallaf, C. L., Afaf, S. R., & Al-Mutairi. (2016). Digital literacy and digital content supports learning: The impact of blogs on teaching English as a foreign language. The Electronic Library, 34(3), 522–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asimov, E. G., & Shchukin, A. N. (2009). New dictionary of methodological terms and concepts (the theory and practice of language teaching). Moscow: Publishing House: ICAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzotti, J., & McCool, L. (2016). Using digital learning platforms to extend the flipped classroom. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayerlein, L., & Jeske, D. (2018). Student learning opportunities in traditional and computer mediated internships. Education + Training, 60(1), 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brook, J., & Upitis, R. (2015). Can an online tool support contemporary independent music teaching and learning?. Music Education Research, 17(1), 34–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr-Chellman, A., Dyer, D., & Breman, J. (2000). Burrowing through the network wires: does distance detract from collaborative authentic learning? Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 39–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. Y., Sebastian, H., Linh, V., Bradford, B. L., & Naoshige, U. (2012). Neuron-type-specific signals for reward and punishment in the ventral tegmental area. Nature, 482, 85–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, P. (2008). Modelling the digital content landscape in universities. Library Hi Tech, 26(3), 342–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deliağaoğlu, Ö., & Yıldırım, Z. (2008). Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers & Education, 51(1), 474–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Digolo, B. A., Andang’o, E. A., & Katuli, J. (2011). E-learning as a strategy for enhancing access to music education. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(11).

  • Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based designs (pp. 281–295). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farid, S., Ahmad, R., Alam, M., Akbar, A., & Chang, V. (2018). A sustainable quality assessment model for the information delivery in E-learning systems. Information Discovery and Delivery, 46(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferro, E., Helbig, N. C., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, M. A. (2004). Learning together: Exploring group interactions online. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 54–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teach. Technol. Today, 8, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güzer, B., & Caner, H. (2014). The past, present and future of blended learning: an in depth analysis of literature. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 116, 4596–4603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haded. M. S.(2007). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on performance : A study in Web – based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology.

  • Halverson, L. R., Spring, K. J., Huyett, S., Henrie, C. R., Graham, C. R. (2017). Blended Learning Research in Higher Education and K-12 Settings. Learning, Design, and Technology: An International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haq, A. U., Magoulas, G., Jamal, A., Majeed, A., & Sloan, D. (2018). Users’ perceptions of e-learning environments and services effectiveness: The emergence of the concept functionality model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(1), 89–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, A., Engelbrecht, J., Lazenby, K., & Roux, I. (2006). Blended learning in undergraduate mathematics. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 400–418). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, J. (2014). Solutions to the top 10 challenges of blended learning. Top 10 challenges of blended learning.

  • Huang, R., & Zhou, Y. (2006). Designing blended learning focused on knowledge category and learning activities: case studies from Beijing Normal University. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs (pp. 296–310). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, G. (2007). Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, L. E., & Crawford, R. (2016). Impact of blended learning and team teaching in tertiary pre-service music education classes. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(3).

  • Jia, J., Chen, Y., Ding, Z., & Ruan, M. (2012). Effects of a vocabulary acquisition and assessment system on students’ performance in a blended learning class for English subject. Computers & Education, 58(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, I., & Suzuki, K. (2006). Blended learning in Japan and its application in liberal arts education. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 267–280). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabassi, K., Dragonas, I., Ntouzevits, A., Pomonis, T., Papastathopoulos, G., & Vozaitis, Y. (2016). Evaluating e-learning management system for blended learning in Greek higher education. Springer Open Journal, 5(101).

  • Kaur, A., & Ahmed, A. (2006). Open distance pedagogy: developing a learning mix for the Open University Malaysia. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazu, I. Y., & Dermirkol, M. (2014). Effect of blended learning environment model on high school students’ academic achievement. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 78–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keisling, B. (2018). Blended learning: scaling library services and instruction to support changing educational landscapes. Library Management, 39(3/4), 207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. A., & Bhatti, R. (2017). Digital competencies for developing and managing digital libraries: an investigation from university librarians in Pakistan. The Electronic Library, 35(3), 573–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintu, M. J., 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).

  • Lee, Y. C., Lau, K. C., & Wing Yan Yip, V. (2016). Blended learning for building student-teachers’ capacity to learn and teach science-related interdisciplinary subjects: the case of Hong Kong. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 11(2), 166–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., & Im, Y. (2006). The emergence of the cyber-university and blended learning in learning. Computers and Education, 54(2), 350–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 282–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molchanova, I. I. (2015). Influence of the internet on studying English. International Education Studies, 8(1).

  • Nachmias, R., Ram, J., & Mioduser, D. (2006). Virtual TAU: the story of a campus-wide implementation of blended learning in Tel-Aviv University. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Education Commission Report (2016) on Proposals for national policy on general education in Sri Lanka.

  • Oordt, T. V., & Mulder, I. (2016). Implementing basic e-learning tools into an undergraduate taxation curriculum. Meditari Accountancy Research, 24(3), 341–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning systems: definitions and directions. Q. Rev. Distance Educ., 4(3), 227–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owston, R. D., Garrison, D. R., & Cook, K. (2006). Blended learning at Canadian universities: issues and practices. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 338–350). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford Group. (2013). Blended learning-current use, challenges and best practices. Available at http://www.kineo.com/m/0/blended-learning-report-202013.pdf . Accessed on 17 Mar 2016.

  • Picciano A.G., Seaman, J and Seaman, J. (2010). Class connections. High school reform and the role of online learning.

  • Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G., & Lawless, N. (2006). Management education for the twenty-first century. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning (pp. 374–386). San Francisco: Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savelsbergh, R. E., Prins, G. T., Rietbergen, T., Fechner, S., Vassen, B. E., Drijer, J. M., & Bakker, A. (2016). Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and achievement: a meta-analytic study. Educational Research Review, Elsevier, 19, 158–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schober, A. & Keller, L. (2012). Impact factors for learner motivation in blended learning environments. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), [online]. Available at https://www.learntechlib.org/p/44977/. Accessed on 20th August 2017.

  • Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research methods for business. A skill building approach. New Delhi: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G. and Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended E-learning: A review of UK literature and practice, Higher Education Academy.

  • Shchitov, A. G., Shchitova, O. G., Shchitova, D. A., Stasinska, P., & Chieu, D. T. C. (2015). Features of the learning modular system moodle use in teaching the Russian language to Russian and foreign students at an institution of higher Eduaction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 215, 170–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, T. (2010). Creating opportunities for students in large cohorts to reflect in and on practice: Lessons learnt from a formative evaluation of students’ experiences of a technology enhanced blended learning design. British Journal of Education Technology, 41(2), 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: relationships and critical factors. Computer Education, 51, 318–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subarna, S. (2017). Sustainability, blended learning and the undergraduate communication skills classroom: negotiating engineering undergraduates’ expectations and perceptions. On the Horizon, 25(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suprabha, K., & Subramonian, G. (2015). Blended learning approach for enhancing students’ learning experience in knowledge society. I-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. M. (2004). Faculty self-study research project: Examining the online workload. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3), 84–88.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughen, N. (2014). Student engagement and blended learning: making the assessment connection. Education Sciences, 4, 227–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Croeau, A. and Rabah, J. (2014). Perceptions of effectiveness of instructional uses of technology in higher education in an era of Web 2.0′, 47th Hawai International Conference on System Science.

  • Viet, A. N. (2017). Towards the implementation of an assessment-centred blended learning framework at the course level: A case study in a Vietnamese national university. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(1), 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. G. L., & Keeffe, M. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: a case study of blended learning design. High Education Research Development, 29(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students’ learning behaviours and performance: report from a large blended classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 673–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, A. (2005). Strategies for managing digital content formats. Library Review, 54(9), 508–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woltering, V., Herrler, A., Spitzer, K., & Spreckelsen, C. (2009). Blended learning positively affects students’ satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: results of a mixed-method evaluation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(5), 725–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, K. W. (2016). Understanding creativity competency for organizational learning: a study of employees’ assumptions on creativity competency in creative industry. Journal of Management Development, 35(10), 1198–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yen, J. C., & Lee, C. Y. (2011). Exploring problem-solving patterns and their impact on learning achievement in a blended learning environment. Computers and Education, 56(1), 138–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P.-T., Lai, Y.-S., Tsai, H.-S., & Chang, Y.-H. (2010). Using a multimodal learning system to support music instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yusoff, S., Yusoff, R., & Md Noh, N. H. (2017). Blended learning approach for less proficient students. SAGE Open, 7(3), 2158244017723051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Chamila Nishanthi Edward

    Present address: Management and Science University (MSU), No. 4, University Drive, Off Persiaran Olahraga, Seksyen 13, 40100, Shah Alam, Selangor, Darul Ehasan, Malaysia

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management and Science University (MSU), No. 4, University Drive, Off Persiaran Olahraga, Seksyen 13, 40100, Shah Alam, Selangor, Darul Ehasan, Malaysia

    Md. Gapar Md. Johar

  2. Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

    David Asirvatham

Authors
  1. Chamila Nishanthi Edward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Asirvatham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Md. Gapar Md. Johar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chamila Nishanthi Edward.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Edward, C.N., Asirvatham, D. & Johar, M.G.M. Effect of blended learning and learners’ characteristics on students’ competence: An empirical evidence in learning oriental music. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2587–2606 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9732-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9732-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation