skip to main content
10.1145/3514262.3514283acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesic4eConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Meta-Analysis of Blended Learning in High School Physics from 2014-2020

Published:19 April 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Blended learning (BL) is a technologically driven approach that relies on multiple modalities in teaching content. The researchers investigated BL by integrating information communication technology (ICT) in high school physics from 2014 to 2020. Twenty-four (24) individual studies were presented where twenty-seven (27) reports were extracted. The random-effects size indicated a significant large ES preferring BL as a promising approach in teaching Physics among high school learners. Favorability towards LMS use in teaching was observed, while a significant ES is seen in both Junior and Senior learners showing preference in BL. Studies with low ES showed a teaching approach that relied on less teacher supervision. Furthermore, publication bias suggests that studies available in the searched online databases primarily published BL panned results.

References

  1. DepEd, Official Statement. 2020: Pasig City, Philippines.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Esguerra, D., Briones: Philippines used to blended learning. , in Inquirer. 2020: Philippines.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. DepEd, DepEd prepares Self-Learning Modules for education's new normal. 2020: Philippines.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Malipot, M., Teachers’ participation in module-writing for blended learning ‘crucial’ – DepEd, in Manila Bulleting. 2020: Philippines.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Hrastinski, S., What Do We Mean by Blended Learning? TechTrends, 2019. 63(5): p. 564-569.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Osguthorpe, R. and C. Graham, Blending learning environments: Definitions and directions.• e Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4 (3), 227–233. Recuperado de https://www.learntechlib.org/p/97576 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Garrison, D.R. and H. Kanuka, Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2004. 7(2): p. 95-105.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Glass, G.V. and M.L. Smith, Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 1979. 1(1): p. 2-16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Borenstein, M., , Fixed-effect versus random-effects models. Introduction to Meta-analysis, 2009. 77: p. 85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Shamseer, L., , Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 2015. 350: p. g7647.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Moher, D., , Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 2009. 6(7).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Durlak, J.A., How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. J Pediatr Psychol, 2009. 34(9): p. 917-28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Longo, L. and E. Gulbay. The Flipped Classroom: A Model Experimented with Undergraduate Students in University of Palermo. in INTED2016 Conference. 2016. IATED.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Pierce, C.A., Software Review: Borenstein, M., Hedges, LV, Higgins, JPT, & Rothstein, HR (2006). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 2.2. 027)[Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat. Organizational Research Methods, 2008. 11(1): p. 188-191.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hedges, L.V., Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1992. 17(4): p. 279-296.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Lakens, D., Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in psychology, 2013. 4: p. 863-863.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ahmed, S.S. and S.J. Haji, The Effectiveness of Using Flipped Learning Strategy in The Academic Achievement by Eighth Grade Basic Students in The Subject of Science and Developing Their Reflective Thinking. Humanities Journal of University of Zakho (HJUOZ), 2020. 8(2): p. 311-331.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Alsalhi, N.R., M.E. Eltahir, and S.S. Al-Qatawneh, The effect of blended learning on the achievement of ninth grade students in science and their attitudes towards its use. Heliyon, 2019. 5(9): p. e02424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Ardianti, S., , The impact of the use of STEM education approach on the blended learning to improve student's critical thinking skills. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2020. 8(3B).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Din, R. and M. Hussin, Effectiveness of flipped learning in physics education on palestinian high school students’ achievement. Journal of Personalized Learning, 2016. 2(1): p. 73-85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Çetin, A. and Ö.F. Özdemir, Mode-Method Interaction: The Role of Teaching Methods on The Effect of Instructional Modes on Achievements, Science Process Skills, and Attitudes Towards Physics. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2018. 14(5).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Chang, C.-C., , Is blended e-learning as measured by an achievement test and self-assessment better than traditional classroom learning for vocational high school students? International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2014. 15(2): p. 213-231.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Babb, H. and J. Cunningham, The Effects of Combining a Flipped Classroom with Modeling Instruction in AP Physics Classrooms. 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Eldy, E.F., , Inverted Classroom Improves Pre-University Students Understanding on Basic Topic of Physics: The Preliminary Study. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 2019. 9(3): p. 420-427.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaol, L.L. and M. Sirait, The effect of blended learning using schoology toward student learning outcomes on work and energy topic in SMAN 1 perbaungan. Jurnal Penelitian Bidang Pendidikan, 2019. 25(1): p. 23-29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Herliana, F., , The differences in physics learning outcomes based on gender after using blended problem-based learning model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2020. 1460(1).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Limueco, J.M. and M.S. Prudente, Flipping Classroom to Improve Physics Teaching. Advanced Science Letters, 2018. 24: p. 8292–8296.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Magalong, S.J.M. and M.S. Prudente, Exploring students'perceptions and conceptual understanding in a next generation blended learning (NXGBL) physics class. Innovative Technology and Management Journal, 2020. 3: p. 35-44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahmudah, R., The influence pf TSOI hybrid learning model to physic learning outcomes in SMA Islam Athirah Bukit Baruga Makassar. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019. 1321(3).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Maley, T., Investigating the Effects of Delivering Content Based on a Waves Learning Progression on Learning Outcomes in an Online High School Physics Unit, in Department of Middle-Secondary Education and Instructional Technology. 2014, Georgia State University: Georgia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Maulida, D.R., , Embedding The Guided Inquiry On Blended Learning To Enhance Conceptual Understanding. International journal of scientific & technology research, 2020. 9(1).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Mulhayatiah, D., A. Kindi, and Y. Dirgantara, Moodle-blended problem solving on student skills in learning optical devices. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019. 1155(1).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Siska Wati Dewi, P., , Investigation of Inquiry Behaviors and Learning Achievement in Authentic Contexts with the Ubiquitous-Physics App. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2019. 22(4).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. P.Sivakumar and S.Selvakumar, Blended Learning Package: It‘s Effectiveness On Students‘ Performance And Retention In Higher Secondary Physics Course. International journal of scientific & technology research, 2019. 8(10).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Suana, W., , The effect of blended learning setting on students' critical thinking skills in physics. Journal of Physics …, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Sulisworo, D., S.P. Agustin, and E. Sudarmiyati, Cooperative-blended learning using Moodle as an open source learning platform. Int. J. Technology Enhanced Learning, 2016. 8(2): p. 187-198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Sulisworo, D., , The impact of using LINE@ on the cooperative learning to improve the critical thinking skills of high school students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2018. 1088(1).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Sulisworo, D., T. Handayani, and D.A. Kusumaningtyas, The critical thinking effect of the computer simulation in the physics teaching and learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019. 1157(3).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Taramopoulos, A. and D. Psillos, Promoting Representational Fluency Through Dynamically Linked Concrete and Abstract Representations in Electric Circuits. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2019. 28(6): p. 638-650.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Zain, A.R. and Jumadi, Effectiveness of guided inquiry based on blended learning in physics instruction to improve critical thinking skills of the senior high school student. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2018. 1097: p. 012015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Borenstein, M., , Basics of meta‐analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research synthesis methods, 2017. 8(1): p. 5-18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Rothstein, H.R., A.J. Sutton, and M. Borenstein, Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. 2006: John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. van Aert, R.C.M., J.M. Wicherts, and M. van Assen, Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2019. 14(4): p. e0215052.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Oliver, M. and K. Trigwell, Can ‘blended learning'be redeemed? E-learning and Digital Media, 2005. 2(1): p. 17-26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Singh, H., Building effective blended learning programs, in Challenges and Opportunities for the Global Implementation of E-Learning Frameworks. 2021, IGI Global. p. 15-23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Teoh, S.C., C.K. Ch'ng, and N.Z. Zaibidi, Analyzing the Factors that Hinder the Implementation of ICT in Teaching-Learning Process in Rural Area by using Analytic Hierarchy Process.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Prajaknate, P., Information Communication Technologies (ICT) for Education Projects in ASEAN: Can We Close the Digital Divide?, in Sustainable Development Goals in the Asian Context. 2017, Springer. p. 107-133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Machmud, M.T., A.P. Widiyan, and N.R. Ramadhani, The Development and Policies of ICT Supporting Educational Technology in Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, and Myanmar. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 2021. 10(1): p. 78-85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Gaol Ford, L. and F. Hutagalung, The trends of blended learning in South East Asia. Education and Information Technologies, 2020. 25(2): p. 659-663.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Fleischmann, K., Hands-on versus virtual: Reshaping the design classroom with blended learning. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 2021. 20(1): p. 87-112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Mirfani, A. The Challenges of Implementing ICT in The Indonesia National Education System of The Industrial Revolution Era 4.0. in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2019. IOP Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Kiang, N.H. and M.M. Yunus, What do Malaysian ESL Teachers Think About Flipped Classroom? International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 2021. 20(3).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Rasheed, R.A., A. Kamsin, and N.A. Abdullah, An Approach for Scaffolding Students Peer-Learning Self-Regulation Strategy in the Online Component of Blended Learning. IEEE Access, 2021. 9: p. 30721-30738.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Eggers, J.H., R. Oostdam, and J. Voogt, Self-regulation strategies in blended learning environments in higher education: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2021: p. 175-192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Errabo, D.D.R., , Impact of 7E Inquiry Segments in a Mixed Online Learning Environment, in 2021 3rd International Conference on Modern Educational Technology. 2021, Association for Computing Machinery. p. 136–141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Jackson, D., The implications of publication bias for meta-analysis' other parameter. Statistics in Medicine, 2006. 25(17): p. 2911-2921.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    IC4E '22: Proceedings of the 2022 13th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management, and E-Learning
    January 2022
    626 pages
    ISBN:9781450387187
    DOI:10.1145/3514262

    Copyright © 2022 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 19 April 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)27
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format