Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 22 no. 8 (2024)

Preservice Teachers’ Team-based Learning, Connectedness, and Gratification Levels in Blended Learning Environments in a State University

Mark John Belleza | Kenneth Abagatnan | Roselyn Lagdamat | Liveliza Lausa | Kristell Neulid | Ruth Posadas | Rica Sase

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The global prominence of blended learning, notably accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has led higher education institutions, including universities, to rapidly adopt blended learning models, combining online teaching resources with traditional face-to-face instruction. This study examines team-based learning, connectedness, and gratification levels among Bachelor of Elementary Education trainee teachers at Northern Iloilo State University, Main Campus, during the 2022-2023 academic year amidst blended learning. Through a stratified random technique, 166 participants were selected. Data analysis included frequency counts, percentages, means, standard deviations, ANOVA, and independent sample t-tests. Results indicated overall high levels of team-based learning, connectedness, and gratification across various demographic variables, except for a significant difference based on educational stage. The findings underscore the effectiveness of blended learning and the importance of enhancing teaching strategies for trainee teachers to foster collaboration, connectedness, and gratification. Recommendations include curriculum updates and implementing practices to improve pre-service teachers' expertise and gratification in blended learning, ultimately promoting inclusive education and effective teaching strategies in higher education institutions.



References:

  1. Aldholay, A. H., Abdullah, Z., Ramayah, T., Isaac, O., & Mutahar, A. M. (2018). Online learning usage and performance among students within public universities in Yemen. International Journal of Services and Standards, 12(2), 163–179.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSS.2018.10011608
  2. Aldholay, A. H., Isaac, O., Abdullah, Z., Abdulsalam, R., & Al-Shibami, A. H. (2018). An extension of the technology acceptance  model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management system. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 518-533.
  3. Alghamdi, A., Karpinski, A. C., Lepp, A., & Barkley, J. (2020). Online and face-to-face classroom multitasking and academic  performance: moderated mediation with self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 214.
  4. Ali, A., Kohun, F., & Pollacia, L. (2018). Enhancing team-based learning through cloud computing technologies. Issues in Informing  Science and Information Technology, 15, 1-16.
  5. Al-Samarraie, H., & Saeed, N. (2018). A systematic review of cloud computing tools for team-based learning: Opportunities and  challenges to the blended-learning environment. Computers & Education, 124, 77–91.
  6. Anaraki, F. (2018). The effectiveness of blended learning: A case study. ABAC Journal, 38(2), 82-93.
  7. Bali, M., & Liu, M. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ connectedness in blended learning environments: Associations with connectedness,  course gratification, and learning outcomes. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52-60.
  8. Blaine, A. M. (2019). Interaction and presence in the virtual classroom: An analysis of the perceptions of students and teachers in  online and blended Advanced Placement courses. Computers & Education, 132, 31-43.
  9. Botha, J. (2019). Student gratification with a blended learning approach: Implementation evaluation of three Honours programs in  Education [master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University].
  10. Business Standard. (2021, November 14). The digital divide is still a challenge in remote teaching and learning: Experts. Business  Standard. https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/digital-divide-still-a-challenge-in-remote-teaching-learning
  11. Cesari, V., et al. (2021). Enhancing Connectedness and Learning Outcomes in Teacher Education Blended Courses. International  Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 5(1), 48-56.
  12. Chamberlain, L., Lacina, J., Bintz, W. P., Jimerson, J. B., Payne, K., & Zingale, R. (2020). Literacy in lockdown: Learning and teaching  during COVID-19 school closures. Reading Teacher, 74, 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1961
  13. Cheng, X., Mo, W., & Duan, Y. (2023). Factors contributing to learning gratification with blended learning teaching mode among  higher education students in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1193675. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1193675 
  14. Chiu, T. K. F. (2021). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the  COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998
  15. Commission on Higher Education [CHED]. (2020). Guidelines on flexible learning in higher education institutions amid the COVID 19 pandemic. Retrieved from http://www.ched.gov.ph
  16. Conklin, S., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2021). Instructor connectedness and connectedness in a quick shift from face-to-face to online  instruction. Online Learning Journal, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2482
  17. de la Varre, C., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2011). The effects of blended learning on student engagement and satisfaction. Journal of  Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 5(1), 1-16.
  18. Deng, C., Peng, J., & Li, S. (2022). Research on the state of blended learning among college students – A mixed-method approach.  Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1054137.
  19. Esquivel, G. B. (2020). Connectedness and the experience of online learning: A comparison of students at a mainland, an island, and  an upland university. Higher Learning Research Communications, 10(1), 1-15.
  20. Fortin, A., Viger, C., Deslandes, M., Callimaci, A., & Desforges, P. (2019). Accounting students’ choice of blended learning format  and its impact on performance and gratification. Accounting Education, 28(4), 353–383. 
  21. Guest, R., Rohde, N., Selvanathan, S., & Soesmanto, T. (2018). Students’ gratification and online teaching. Assessment and Evaluation  in Higher Education, 43(7), 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1433815
  22. Han, M., & Li, Y. (2019). The effect of face-to-face and non-face-to-face synchronously team-based writing environment on student  engagement and academic performance. Journal of Education, Innovation, and Communication (JEICOM), 1(2), 65-74.
  23. Hehir, E., Zeller, M., Luckhurst, J., & Chandler, T. (2021). Developing student connectedness under remote learning using digital  resources: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6531 - 6548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10577
  24. Izmirli, S., Kilic, G. B., &Yurdugul, H. (2019). Creating a sense of presence in online learning environments: The role of teaching  presence and connectedness. Distance Education, 40(4), 464-483.
  25. Jain D (2020) Online education: Challenges faced by rural communities. https://www.financialexpres s.com/educati on-2/online education-challenges-faced-byruralcommunities/2103301/. Accessed 22 January 2023
  26. Kaba, A., & Ramaiah, C. K. (2020). Evaluating the usability of cloud-based collaborative learning systems: A developing country  perspective. The Electronic Library, 38(1), 17-33.
  27. Min, W., & Yu, Z. (2023). A Systematic Review of Critical Success Factors in Blended Learning. Education Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050469.
  28. Mondi, P., Woods, P., & Rafi, A. (2008). Towards a social-pragmatic constructivist approach to free software education. Computer  Science Education, 18(2), 165-184.
  29. Nussbaum, M. (2008). Team-based discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational  Psychology, 33(3), 345-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001 
  30. Oh, Catherine S.; Bailenson, Jeremy N.; Welch, Gregory F. (2018). A Systematic Review of Connectedness: Definition, Antecedents,  and Implications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5(), 114–.
  31. Padilla, B. I., &Kreider, K. E. (2018). Community of inquiry framework for advanced practice nursing students. The Journal for Nurse  Practitioners, 14(5), e87-e92.
  32. Salcedo, M. (2022). Perception of Blended Learning in Faculty and Students of Higher Learning. International Journal of Education  and Practice. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v10i3.3069.
  33. Singh, V. and Thurman, A. (2019) “How Many Ways Can We Define Online Learning? A Systematic Literature Review of Definitions  of Online Learning (1988-2018)”, American Journal of Distance Education, Vol 33(4), pp 289-306.
  34. Stuart, J., O’Donnell, A., Scott, R., O’Donnell, K., Lund, R., & Barber, B. (2022). Asynchronous and synchronous remote teaching and  academic outcomes during COVID-19. Distance Education, 43, 408 - 425. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2088477. 
  35. Swanson, E., McCulley, L., Osman, D., Lewis, N., & Solis, M. (2019). The effect of team-based learning on content knowledge: A  meta-analysis. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20, 39 - 50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731201. 
  36. Uz, R., &Uzun, A. (2018). The influence of blended learning environment on self-regulated and self-directed learning skills of learners.  European Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 877-886.
  37. Van Lacker, V., & Parolin, B. (2020). The relationship between Wealth level and connectedness in online learning environments.  Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(3), 701-716.
  38. Wong, J. O. (2020). A pandemic in 2020, Zoom and the arrival of the online educator. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(3).
  39. Yıldırım, D., & Usluel, Y. (2022). Interrelated analysis of interaction, sequential patterns and academic achievement in online learning.  Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 181–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7360

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic