LEE Ming Cherk*, Netty Haiffaq Binte Zaini MATTAR, CAO Feng, and Norhayati Ismail
Centre for English Language and Communication (CELC), NUS
Cao, F., Lee, M. C., Netty Haiffaq Zaini Mattar, & Norhayati Ismail (2024). The efficacy of instructional practice and support on student engagement and wellbeing in blended learning [Paper presentation]. In Higher Education Conference in Singapore (HECS) 2024, 3 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecs/hecs2024-caof-et-al/
SUB-THEME
Opportunities from Wellbeing
KEYWORDS
Instructional practice, support, student engagement, well-being
CATEGORY
Paper Presentation
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
The blended learning approach, which combines both online and face-to-face teaching and resources (Albiladi & Alshareef, 2019), has become a “new normal” in higher education (Luo et al., 2017; Porter et al., 2016). It necessitates that students switch between synchronous and asynchronous modes of learning, and between multiple e-learning and communication platforms. Such changes have felt sudden and imposed (Finlay et al., 2022), and is further complicated by differences in online accessibility (Bayyat et al., 2021). Navigating through these various modes and platforms, even as they continue to shift and fluctuate over the years, has been demanding for students. This has caused increased distress and anxiety in students (Hagedorn et al., 2022) such that scholars have now turned their attention to the wellbeing of students in blended learning environments (Huang, 2023; Mendoza & Venables, 2023).
Wellbeing is defined as a positive state of mental health. Wellbeing also indicates feelings of competence, agency, self-motivation, positive relationships, and personal growth (Baik, et al, 2017, p. 3). Scholars have suggested that student engagement in learning has an impact on student well-being which in turn has a strong bearing on academic achievement (Baik, et al, 2017; Houghton & Anderson, 2017; Alvarado et al., 2019; Ward-Griffin et al., 2018). In higher education, engagement is linked to students’ involvement with academically meaningful activities (Kuh, 2001).
Working on the notion that student engagement is indicative of well-being, this study examines the engagement levels of undergraduates at the National University of Singapore in a range of blended-learning courses offered by the Centre for English Language Communication (CELC), NUS. The purpose was to measure students’ sense of engagement vis-a-vis the instructional practices and support (e.g., issuing reminders, clarifying instructions, and answering questions) given to promote engagement and student well-being and to identify aspects of learning where students felt least engaged.
The three main research questions were:
- To what extent were the students well engaged in learning?
- How did the students’ engagement correlate with the instructional practice and support given?
- What actions can be taken to improve student engagement and, ultimately, their well-being?
Based on the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison et al., 2000), a questionnaire survey was devised with the assumption that student engagement is an indicator of student well-being. The effects of the instructional structure and practices delivered through blended learning were tested on behavioural, cognitive, and emotional engagement (Fredericks et. al., 2016). Statistical analyses were subsequently performed to compare the data and identify correlations among the variables. The findings were then corroborated by interviews with students.
The results demonstrate highly positive perceptions towards teacher support, student participation, collaboration, and students’ sense of belonging. Moreover, the analysis of students’ responses shows either moderate or strong correlations between students’ engagement levels and instructional practices and support.
Understanding how various instructional practices and support provided for blended learning environments in CELC courses can help to inform the improvement of blended learning courses, such that student mental well-being is enhanced.
REFERENCES
Albiladi, W. S., & Alshareef, K. K. (2019). Blended Learning in English Teaching and Learning: A Review of the Current Literature. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(2), 232. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1002.03
Baik, C.; Larcombe, W., Brooker, A., Wyn, J., Allen, L., Brett, M., Field, R., & James, R (2017). Enhancing student mental wellbeing. A Handbook for Academic Educators., 26(8), 879-896.
Bayyat, M., Muaılı, Z. H. A., & Aldabbas, L. (2021). Online component challenges of a blended learning experience: A comprehensive approach. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(4), 277-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1002881
Finlay, M. J., Tinnion, D. J., & Simpson, T. (2022). A virtual versus blended learning approach to higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: The experiences of a sport and exercise science student cohort. Journal of hospitality, leisure, sport & tourism education, 30, 100363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100363
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Hagedorn, R. L., Wattick, R. A., & Olfert, M. D. (2022). “My entire world stopped”: College students’ psychosocial and academic frustrations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(2), 1069-1090. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09948-0
Houghton, A-M. & Anderson, J. (2017) Embedding mental wellbeing in the curriculum: maximising success in higher education. Higher Education Academy.
Huang, J. C. (2023). Implementation effect of integrating cooperative inquiry into blended learning: analysis of students’ goal setting, task value, and well-being. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2205896
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380109601795
Liem, G. A. D., & Chong, W. H. (2017). Fostering student engagement in schools: International best practices. School Psychology International, 38(2), 121-130. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0143034317702947
Luo, L., Cheng, X., Wang, S., Zhang, J., Zhu, W., Yang, J., & Liu, P. (2017). Blended learning with Moodle in medical statistics: An assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to e-learning. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1009-x
Mendoza, A., & Venables, A. (2023). Attributes of blended learning environments designed to foster a sense of belonging for higher education students. Journal of Information Technology Education. Research, 22, 129. http://dx.doi.org/10.28945/5082
National Survey of Student Engagement (2023). Engagement indicators and high-impact practices. https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/survey-instruments/engagement-indicators.html
Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R. G., & Sandberg, D. S. (2016). A qualitative analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003