Malissa Maria Mahmud
ABSTRACT
Blended learning epitomizes a periphery notion; an entity that ties spheres from unique and diverse attributes and conditions. The concept of evaluating and defining the quality of student learning experiences in a blended environment is complex, subjective and multi-perspective. Nonetheless, this concept is vital and beneficial in assessing and refining the performance and potential of blended learning approaches which is consequential to the learning outcomes, various needs and objectives of the real-world applications. Moreover, the optics of quality technological deployment remain a debatable issue by way of limited evidences in substantiating operational procedures. Thus, this study proposes the adaptation of Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C) quality indicators in appraising the quality of blended learning approaches. In particular, the Five Pillars of Quality which includes (a) Learning Effectiveness, (b) Access, (c) Cost-Effectiveness and Institutional Commitment, (d) Faculty Satisfaction, and (e) Student Satisfaction were conceptualized to be adapted into an operating framework, offering a means of implementing and continuously improving the aspect of quality in blended learning by converging individual institutional aims, objectives as well as other elements including (a) Goal, (b) Process, (c) Metric and (d) Progress. The untapped potential of Sloan-C in the corroboration of Key Success Indicators (KSIs), sequentially elucidated in the Transformative Driven Mechanism Framework (TDM) by Mahmud (2017), in uncovering the notions quality in blended learning are also discussed.
- Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examing social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68--84.Google Scholar
- Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & education, 50(4), 1183--1202.Google Scholar
- Bowyer, J., & Chambers, L. (2017). Evaluating blended learning: Bringing the elements together. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication, 23, 17--26.Google Scholar
- Pawlowski, J. M. (2007). The quality adaptation model: adaptation and adoption of the quality standard ISO/IEC 19796-1 for learning, education, and training. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 3--16.Google Scholar
- Ehlers, U. D. (2004). Quality in e-learning from a learner's perspective. European Journal for Distance and Open Learning, 1, 73--90.Google Scholar
- Baldazzi, A., Ricci, L., & Baroz, V. V. (Eds.). (2015). E-learning quality assurance: a multi perspective approach. Gangemi Editore spa.Google Scholar
- Deepwell, F. (2007). Embedding Quality in e-Learning Implementation through Evaluation. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (2), 34--43.Google Scholar
- Mahmud, M. M. (2017). Transformative driven mechanism framework as key success indicators for blended learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Technology MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia.Google Scholar
- Mahmud, M. M. (2018). Technology and Language-What Works and What Does Not: A Meta-analysis of Blended Learning Research. Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 365.Google Scholar
- Lim, D. H., & Johnson, S. (2002). Trainee Perceptions of factors that influence learning transfer. International Journal of Training and Development, 6(1), 36--48.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sullivan, R. (2002). Transfer of learning: A guide for strengthening the performance of health care workers. Retrieved from http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/ english/6read/6training/tol/index.htm.Google Scholar
- Gan, B., Menkhoff, T., & Smith, R. (2015). Enhancing students' learning process through interactive digital media: New opportunities for collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 652--663.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lim, D. H., & Kim, H. J. (2003). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(4), 423--439.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227--33.Google Scholar
- Chung, J., & Davis, I. K. (1995). An instructional theory for learner control: Revisited. In M. R. Simonson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1995 Annual National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA: AACE, 72--86.Google Scholar
- Bielawski, L., & Metcalf, D. S. (2003). Blended e-learning: Integrating knowledge, performance, support, and online learning. Human Resource Development. Amherst: HRD Press.Google Scholar
- Chuang, C. P., Zheng, B. Y., Chien, H. C., Huang, Y. J., & Hsieh, N. T. (2012). Learning effects of blended learning at different ratios with SP chart. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci, 6, 143--151.Google Scholar
- Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Ellis, R. A., & Calvo, R. A. (2007). Minimum indicators to assure quality of LMS-supported blended learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 60--70.Google Scholar
- Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations, 2, 13--17.Google Scholar
- Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 3.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rutkowski, J., Moscinska, K., & Klosowski, P. (2005). Redevelopment of a Large Engineering Course from a Traditional to Blended Model-Circuit Theory Example. In The Proceedings of The 8th IASTED International Conference on Computers And Advanced Technology in Education.Google Scholar
- Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339--362.Google Scholar
- Bourne, J. R., Mayadas, A. F., & Campbell, J. O. (2000). Asynchronous learning networks: an information-technology-based infrastructure for engineering education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 88(1), 63--71.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Coryell, J. E. & Chlup, D. T. (2007). Implementing e-learning components with adult English language learners: Vital factors and lessons learned. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 263--278.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hong, K. H. & Samimy, K. K. (2010). The influence of L2 teachers' use of CALL modes on language learners' reactions to blended learning. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 328--248.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning: Parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL 17(2), 163--178.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL, 19(1), 57--78.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan Consortium quality framework and the five pillars. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved July, 15, 2007.Google Scholar
- Bourne, J. R., & Moore, J. C. (Eds.). (2004). Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream (No. 5). Olin College-Sloan-C.Google Scholar
- Moore, J. C. (2012). A Synthesis of Sloan-C Effective Practices, December 2011. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(1), 91--115.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Measuring Quality in Blended Learning: A Multimodal of the Sloan Consortium, Key Success Indicators and Transformative Driven Mechanism
Recommendations
Measuring the effectiveness of blended learning environment: A case study in Malaysia
Learning environment has always been traditionally associated with the physical presence of classrooms, textbooks, pen-and-paper examinations and teachers. However, today's evolving technology has rapidly changed the face of education. Online learning, ...
Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning
This paper discusses the harmonizing role of technology and interaction in a qualitative study on blended problem-based learning within the context of academic development in higher education. Within this setting, and as both designers and tutors in ...
Embedded blended learning within an Algebra classroom: a multimedia capture experiment
This two-group, pretest-posttest, quasi-experimental study compared secondary students' learning of Algebra II materials over a 4-week period when identical instruction by the same teacher was delivered through either embedded blended learning treatment ...
Comments