International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(5) 315-331

Achievement and Perceived Satisfaction, Collaboration and Social Presence of Pre-Service Teachers in a Blended Learning Environment

Melike Ozudogru

pp. 315 - 331   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.375.20   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2104-06-0003

Published online: September 30, 2021  |   Number of Views: 9  |  Number of Download: 29


Abstract

This case study aimed to investigate whether the perceived satisfaction, collaboration, and social presence of pre-service teachers predicted their achievement in a blended learning environment and differed significantly according to their gender and departments. This study was conducted during the fall semester of 2019-2020 for six weeks at an educational sciences course in a public university in Turkey. 149 pre-service teachers were chosen according to the purposive sampling method. In this study, the course design was based on the ‘Blending with Purpose’ multimodal model, and data were collected through course grades and the application of the ‘Satisfaction, Collaboration and Social Presence Scale’. After conducting the descriptive and inferential statistical analysis, it was found that satisfaction, collaboration, social presence, and academic achievement of pre-service teachers correlated significantly in a positive direction, but only the satisfaction in the course predicted their achievement. Also, this study found some significant differences in terms of gender and department according to the academic achievement, satisfaction, collaboration, and social presence of pre-service teachers. The possible explanations for these results were examined and discussed in detail.

Keywords: Academic Achievement; Blended Learning; Collaboration; Satisfaction; Social Presence


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ozudogru, M. (2021). Achievement and Perceived Satisfaction, Collaboration and Social Presence of Pre-Service Teachers in a Blended Learning Environment . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(5), 315-331. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.375.20

Harvard
Ozudogru, M. (2021). Achievement and Perceived Satisfaction, Collaboration and Social Presence of Pre-Service Teachers in a Blended Learning Environment . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(5), pp. 315-331.

Chicago 16th edition
Ozudogru, Melike (2021). "Achievement and Perceived Satisfaction, Collaboration and Social Presence of Pre-Service Teachers in a Blended Learning Environment ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (5):315-331. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.375.20.

References
  1. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233-250.  [Google Scholar]
  2. Allred-Oyarzun, S. E. (2016). Effects of learner-to-learner interactions on social presence, achievement and satisfaction [Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University]. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/stemps_etds/6/ [Google Scholar]
  3. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227-236.  [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolliger, D. U., & Erichsen, E. A. (2013). Student satisfaction with blended and online courses based on personality type. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 39(1), 1–23.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dang, Y. M., Zhang, Y. G., Ravindran, S., & Osmonbekov, T. (2016). Examining student satisfaction and gender differences in technology-supported, blended learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 27(2), 119-130.  [Google Scholar]
  8. Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, 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, 474-483.  [Google Scholar]
  9. Dunaway, M. M. (2013). IS learning: The impact of gender and team emotional intelligence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 24(3), 189-202.  [Google Scholar]
  10. Ferguson, J. M., & DeFelice, A. E. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction, perceived learning, and academic performance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 73-84.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using spss. (3th ed.). London: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. [Google Scholar]
  13. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31–36.  [Google Scholar]
  14. Gonzalez-Gomez, F., Guardiola, J., Martín-Rodriguez, O., & Montero-Alonso, M. A. (2012). Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 283-290.  [Google Scholar]
  15. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). London: Pearson New International Edition. [Google Scholar]
  16. Han, H. (2013). Do nonverbal emotional cues matter? Effects of video casting in synchronous virtual classrooms. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 253-264.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson, R. D. (2011). Gender differences in e-learning. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 23(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2011010105 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Jonker, H., Marz, V., & Voogt, J. (2020). Curriculum flexibility in a blended curriculum. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 68-84. [Google Scholar]
  19. LaPointe, D. K., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2004). Developing, testing and refining of a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer‐mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83-106.   [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11, 185-200.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Nel, J., & Raleting, T. (2012). Gender differences in low-income non-users’ attitude towards wireless internet gateway cellphone banking. South African Journal of Business Management, 43(3), 51-63.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Nummenmaa, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2008). University students’ emotions, interest and activities and a web-based learning environment. British Psychological Society, 78(1), 163-178. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ocak, M. A., Gökçearslan, Ş., & Solmaz, E. (2014). Investigating Turkish pre-service teachers’ perceptions of blogs: Implications for the Fatih project. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(1), 22-38. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/252217 [Google Scholar]
  26. Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 83–98. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pattison, A. B. (2017). An exploratory study of the relationship between faculty social presence and online graduate student achievement, satisfaction, and persistence [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Grand Canyon University. [Google Scholar]
  28. Phillips, C. R., & Trainor, J. E. (2014). Milennial students and the flipped classroom. Proceedings of the ASBBS Annual Conference, 21(1), 519-530. Retrieved from http://asbbs.org/files/ASBBS2014/PDF/P/Phillips_Trainor(P519-530).pdf [Google Scholar]
  29. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptıons: Issues of ınteractıon, presence, and performance in an online course. Online Learning Formerly the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN) 6(1), 21-40.  [Google Scholar]
  30. Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: the multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1)17-18.  [Google Scholar]
  31. Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(3), 368-383.   [Google Scholar]
  32. Raubenheimer, J. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximise scale reliability and validity. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 59-64.  [Google Scholar]
  33. So, H-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2010). Examining the roles of blended learning approaches in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments: A delphi study. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 189–200. [Google Scholar]
  34. 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. Computers & Education, 51, 318–336.   [Google Scholar]
  35. Sorden, S. D. (2011). Relationships among collaborative learning, social presence on student satisfaction in a blended learning environment. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northern Arizona University.  [Google Scholar]
  36. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tu, C. H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on e-Learning, 1(2), 34–45.  [Google Scholar]
  38. Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.  [Google Scholar]
  39. Weaver, C. (2005). What encourages student participation in online discussions? [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern Queensland. Retrieved from https://eprints.usq.edu.au/1523/2/Weaver_2005_whole.pdf [Google Scholar]
  40. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research. A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.  [Google Scholar]
  41. Yamada, M., & Goda, Y. (2012). Application of social presence principles to CSCL design for quality interactions. In J. Jia (Ed.), Educational stages and interactive learning: From kindergarden to workplace training (ss. 31-48).  [Google Scholar]
  42. Yang, N., Ghislandi, P., & Dellantonio, S. (2018). Online collaboration in a large university class supports quality teaching. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3), 671–691.  [Google Scholar]
  43. Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79-94.  [Google Scholar]
  44. Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an internet shopping site (Sitequal). Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2(1), 31-45. [Google Scholar]