BLENDED LEARNING PEDAGOGY
to Support Student-Centered Classroom
Amelia T. Buan1,
Roxan A. Consolacion2*,
Lowell G. Lucero3
Mindanao State University
Iligan Institute of Technology
College of Education
Blended
learning
has
been
particularly
appealing to an increasing number of higher
educational institutions. The approach gives
teachers the ability to flip classrooms, improve
instruction,
Abstract
and
empower
students
to
personalize learning by becoming independent
learners.
However,
flipping
the
class
will
not
transform students’ learning but through the
successful implementation that accounts for a
sufficient understanding of technology, content,
and pedagogy.
#E26C22
INTRODUCTION
How to design a Student-Centered
Classroom in BLENDED LEARNING
mode?
BLENDED LEARNING PEDAGOGY TO SUPPORT STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM
#E26C22
INTRODUCTION
Blended Learning (BL)
 an innovative learning approach that can develop personalized
learning which focused on student’s success in developing various
skills such as creativity, innovation, critical thinking, problemsolving,
communication,
and
collaboration,
and
which
metacognition and deep learning. (Ozdamli and Asiksov, 2016).
 comes in different forms; face-to-face driver. Rotation, flex, online
lab, self-blend, online driver, and flipped classroom.
BLENDED LEARNING PEDAGOGY TO SUPPORT STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM
#E26C22
INTRODUCTION
Danker (2015) verified that flipped classrooms could
remodel lecture classes into active-learning classes
emphasizing student-centered learning approach in the
possibility of individualized learning through teacher’s
ability to provide tutoring technology-infused lessons
(Zhang and Fheng, 2017; Nedeva et al., 2019).
BLENDED LEARNING PEDAGOGY TO SUPPORT STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM
#E26C22
INTRODUCTION
Graham, Woodfield, and Harrison (2018) investigated that the Quality
Assessment system implementation ensures that the goals, policies,
supports, and motivational mechanisms for developing blended learning
are met as higher education institutions continuously pour resources for
the development and improvement of technology education.
BLENDED LEARNING PEDAGOGY TO SUPPORT STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM
#E26C22
INTRODUCTION
Developing a blended learning model is very useful in improving the
capacity of the teacher. In this study, the assessed BL practices of
implementers and students’ perception, performance, and satisfaction
towards blended learning, put in place necessary groundwork preparations
in designing the mixed learning model to address blended learning gaps.
BLENDED LEARNING PEDAGOGY TO SUPPORT STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM
#E26C22
Objectives
1
Assess the blended learning practices of implementers
2
Identify students’ perception on the implementation of blended learning
practices5
3
Create a blended learning course using the proposed blended learning
model
4
Compare the performance and satisfaction level of male and female
students in the implementation of blended learning
5
Assess students’ performance and satisfaction towards blended learning
course created
Abstract
However, despite the positive implications
and
initiatives,
only
a
few
teachers
implemented blended learning courses.
Abstract
have
#E26C22
METHODOLOGY
This study is a descriptive type of
research using quantitative and
qualitative data and correlational
methods of research. This study
used
a
purposive
sampling
method.
4
course experts
50
167
student’s perception
teachers
Proposed BL Model
123
student’s satisfaction and
performance
#E26C22
METHODOLOGY
In this study, the researchers
interviewed faculty members and
students to evaluate the quality of
the existing blended learning courses
of the College of education.
Teacher Questionnaires
Student Questionnaires
Survey A. School Technology
Needs Assessment (STNA)
tool.
Survey C. The Quality Online
Learning and Teaching
Instrument (QOLT)
Survey B. Course Design
Rubric
Survey D. Constructivist OnLine Learning Environment
Survey (COLLES).
RESULTS#E26C22
AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 Summary of Specialists Rating on the Existing Blended Learning Courses
1
Indicators
Assessment on the
Blended Learning
Practices of
Implementers
Novice
Implementers
Intermediate
Implementers
Advanced
Implementers
Mean
Description
Mean
Description
Mean
Description
Content Presentation
1.19
Incomplete
1.32
Incomplete
1.50
Aligned
Interaction
1.00
Incomplete
1.02
Incomplete
1.41
Incomplete
Assessment
1.09
Incomplete
1.02
Incomplete
1.47
Incomplete
AccessibilityContent Pages
1.54
Incomplete
1.66
Incomplete
2.29
Incomplete
Accessibility- Files
1.84
Incomplete
2.10
Incomplete
2.08
Incomplete
AccessibilityMultimedia
1.31
Not
Applicable
1.56
Incomplete
1.78
Incomplete
Accommodation
1.25
Not
Applicable
1.50
Incomplete
1.38
Not
Applicable
RESULTS#E26C22
AND DISCUSSION
1
.
Table 2 Summary Perceptions of Faculty on Supportive
Environment and Technology Use, N=50
Indicators
Supportive Environment
and Technology Use
Mean
SD
Degree of Responses
Vision and shared
leadership
4.80
1.23
Adequately Supportive
Organizational Condition
4.55
1.54
Adequately Supportive
Flexible Scheduling
4.40
1.56
Adequately Supportive
Infrastructure
4.34
1.27
Adequately Supportive
Staff Support
4.62
1.33
Adequately Supportive
Media and Software
4.97
1.05
Highly Adequate
1.33
Adequately
Supportive
Average Mean
4.61
RESULTS#E26C22
AND DISCUSSION
1
Professional Development
Table 3. Summary Perceptions of Faculty on Professional Development N=50
Mean
SD
Degree of Responses
Instruction
4.99
1.03
Highly Beneficial
Planning
5.10
0.92
Highly Beneficial
Professional Development Quality
4.95
1.15
Highly Beneficial
5.01
1.03
Highly Beneficial
Indicators
Average Mean
#E26C22
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
1
Teaching and Learning
Table 4 Summary Perceptions of Faculty on Teaching and Learning
N=50
Indicators
Mean
SD
Degree of Responses
Instruction
2.61
1.16
Approaching Proficient
Planning
2.45
1.21
Approaching Proficient
Information and
Communication Technology
2.10
1.31
Developing
Average Mean
2.39
1.23
Developing
#E26C22
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
2
Students’ Perception on
the Implementation of
Blended Learning
Practices
Table 5 Summary of
Students Perception
on the Quality of
Online Teaching and
Learning in MOLE
Classroom, N=167
Indicators
Mean
SD Description
Interpretation
Course Overview and
Introduction
2.60
1.03
Partially meet
Criterion evidence is clear and appropriate for
the course, but there is some room for
enhancement.
Learning Objectives
2.69
0.99
Partially meet
Criterion evidence is clear and appropriate for
the course, but there is some room for
enhancement
Assessment and
Measurements
2.76
1.03
Partially meet
Criterion evidence is clear and appropriate for
the course, but there is some room for
enhancement
Instructional Materials
2.63
1.00
Partially meet
Criterion evidence is clear and appropriate for
the course, but there is some room for
enhancement
Course Activities and
Student Interaction
2.67
1.04
Partially meet
Criterion evidence is clear and appropriate for
the course, but there is some room for
enhancement
Course Technology for
teaching and learning
2.68
1.02
Partially meet
Criterion evidence is clear and appropriate for
the course, but there is some room for
enhancement
Learner support and
Resources
2.58
0.95
Partially meet
Criterion evidence is clear and appropriate for
the course, but there is some room for
enhancement
Accessibility and
Usability
2.66
1.01
Partially meet
Criterion evidence is clear and appropriate for
the course, but there is some room for
enhancement
Partially meet
Criterion evidence is clear and
appropriate for the course, but there is
some room for enhancement
Average Mean 2.66
1.01
#E26C22
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4
O
POLICY
SUPPORT
QUALITY
BLENDED
LEARNING
STUDENT
SUPPORT
FACULTY
SUPPORT
IMLEMENTATION
Figure 1. Blended Learning Model
#E26C22
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
4
Students’ satisfaction towards blended learning
Figure 2. Students’ satisfaction towards preferred and actual blended learning experience
RESULTS#E26C22
AND DISCUSSION
4
In general, students' preference in stimulating critical reflective
thinking and engaging in a fruitful educative dialogue appeared close to
being met; however, they did not prefer to occur often in practice.
Students preferred to be often critical in their learning and their ideas.
It also appeared that they are sometimes essential for other
students as well on their readings. Social interactions in blended learning
provided the learners with a means of active communication through
communicating freely and be actively involved in a dialogue. Students have a
higher preference and often wanted to explain their ideas to other students
and other students to explain their ideas. They also prefer other students to
tell their views and other students to respond to their opinions; however,
they only prefer this not too often.
designing
implementers
-
the
blended
majority do not have an
learning model to address
idea of the model they used
blended learning gaps.
in their BL implementation.
1.
elements of college policy
support and
2. faculty
Results
Students
-
support
in
planning blended learning
blended
learning
somehow
course
partially
meet
courses,
3. faculty
support
their engagement, tools, and
student
information needed whereby
implementation, and
satisfaction
achieved
are
the
4. student
support
in
and
actual
college policy support in
implementation compared to
monitoring and evaluation.
the
on
almost
support
and
expected
students preferred.
practices
#E26C22
CONCLUSION
The data revealed that all implementers are incomplete in meeting standards for accessibility
of content pages, the convenience of files, and multimedia accessibility.
✔ the institute must provide a SUPPORT SYSTEM
media specialist
content expert
instructional designer
COURSE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
(D.R. Garrison, H. Kanuka, 2004)
#E26C22
CONCLUSION
 Data shows that standards were partially met.
There is a need to educate teachers in effective
blended teaching strategies.
#E26C22
CONCLUSION
 Moreover, training programs increase professional
productivity, help communicate and collaborate with
families and other educators, align lesson plans to
content standards, student technology standards, use
data to reflect on professional practices and decisions,
and participate in professional development activities.
Teachers must have an extensive range of learning
experiences on a blended learning course.
#E26C22
CONCLUSION
 MSU-IIT College of Education implementers were provided
adequate support on environment and technology. Teachers
also perceived blended learning as highly beneficial in their
professional development, and their teaching and learning
appeared to be developing.
#E26C22
CONCLUSION
 As learners assume responsibility for their learning,
they become more critical in managing their ideas
(Meyer et al., 2014). However, in this study, learners
are unable to be self-efficient as they don't appear to be
critical and often engage in a fruitful dialogue.
 The result suggests a further study in a greater focus
on instructional design and policy support in bridging
ideas and activities in the online and face to face
environment.
references
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership 57(8), 28-33.
Bouilheres, F., Le, L.T.V.H., McDonald, S. et al. Defining student learning experience through
blended learning. Educ Inf Technol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10100-y
Dewi et al.(2017, December).Critical Success Factor for Implementing Vocational Blended
Learning. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322948581_Critical_Success_Factor_for_Implem
enting_Vocational_Blended_Learning
Draper, S. (2013, March 24). Social Constructivism.
http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/courses/archive/CERE12-13-safariarchive/topic3/webarchive-index.html
Gambari et al.(2017). Effectiveness of Blended Learning and Elearning Modes of Instruction
on the Performance of Undergraduates in Kwara State, Nigeria. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1125071
references
Garrison, D.R.; Vaughan, N.D. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines;
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008.
Graham et al.(2018, February). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. Retrieved from
https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5
Hechter, R & Vermette, L.A.(2013).Technology Integration in K-12 Science Classrooms. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131093
Hurst, B., Wallace, R., & Nixon, S. B. (2013). The Impact of Social Interaction on Student Learning. Reading
Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 52 (4). Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol52/iss4/5
Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., & Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid courses. In A.G. Picciano &
C.D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research Perspectives (pp. 111–143). Needham, MA: The Sloan
Consortium.
Kintu, M.J., Zhu, C. & Kagambe, E. Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student
characteristics, design features and outcomes. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14, 7 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4
references
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher
Knowledge. Teachers College Record. Volume 108, Number 6, June 2006, pp. 1017–1054. Retrieved from
http://one2oneheights.pbworks.com/f/MISHRA_PUNYA.pdf
Lim, C.P. & Wang, L.B. (Eds.) (2016). Blended Learning for Quality Higher Education: Selected Case Studies on
Implementation from Asia-Pacific. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311806838_Lim_CP_Wang_LB_Eds_2016_Blended_Learning_for_Qua
lity_Higher_Education_Selected_Case_Studies_on_Implementation_from_Asia-Pacific_Paris_France_UNESCO
Meyer, Salomé & Wohlers, Shane & Marshall, Robert. (2014). Blended learning: student experiences. Retrieved
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269635377_Blended_learning_student_experiences
Mirriahi et al.,(2015, October). A blended learning framework for curriculum design and professional
development. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283553300_A_blended_learning_framework_for_curriculum_design_
and_professional_development
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C.D., & Moskal, P.D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19(3),
207-216. doi:10.1108/10748121111163913
references
Owston, R. D., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended
learning strategic initiative. The Internet and Higher Education, 18,38–46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.003
Schindel JT, Hughes, CA and Sadowski, CA (2013). Blended Learning: Reflections on Teaching Experiences across
the Pharmacy Education Continuum. Pharmacy 2013, 1, 137-152; doi:10.3390/pharmacy1020137.
www.mdpi.com/journal/pharmacy
Seraji, F. (2018,May). Blended Learning. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325147518_blended_learning
Taylor, P. and Maor, D. (2000, January). The Constructivist On-Line Learning Environment Survey (COLLES).
https://surveylearning.moodle.com/colles/?fbclid=IwAR11iBrH7b7jknW1oAlgc_uCR3UDNxgAICYUSAKJTSzUjk98KnIElkl4XQ
Taylor, P. and Maor, D. (2000). Assessing the efficacy of online teaching with the Constructivist On-Line Learning
Environment Survey. In A. Herrmann and M.M. Kulski (Eds), Flexible Futures in Tertiary Teaching. Proceedings of
the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4 February 2000. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
Wong et al.,(2014, April). A framework for investigating blended learning effectiveness. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262889822_A_framework_for_investigating_blended_learning_effect
iveness