The blended and conventional teaching methods its effect on student academic engagement

Document Type : Research Article



Objective: The main objective of this study was to the blended and conventional teaching methods its effect on student academic engagement
Method: This study was a quasiexperimental that population included all seventh grade girls’ students. The statistical sample of which 56 were selected randomly for the desired conditions. They were divided into two 28-member groups of test and control. Then, test group was exposed to blended method for one month in 8 sessions while the other studied the courses in conventional teaching method. To collect data, standard academic involvement of Tino (2009) was used, the validity and reliability of which were determined in terms of content and surface method as.96 of Cronbach alpha.To analyze data, descriptive and inferential statistics such as Kolmogorov-Smirnov and t-test for independent groups and covariance analysis were used.
Results: The results showed that the rate of academic involvement of students having been educated with blended method is greater than that of students having been taught by conventional method.
Conclusion: Therefore, the effect of education in hybrid method on students` academic involvement is greater than that in conventional method.


اوجی، آناهیتا و مرزوقی، رحمت‌اله (1392)؛ بررسی رابطه ویژگی‌های فردی و تجارب دانشجویان با دستاوردهای آنان از تحصیل در مؤسسات آموزش عالی غیرانتفاعی. مجله پژوهش در برنامه‌ریزی درسی. سال دهم، دوره دوم، شمار پیاپی (11): 71-56.
صابر، سوسن و پاشاشریفی، حسن (1392)؛ پیش‌بینی ابعاد درگیری تحصیلی بر اساس سبک‌های هویت در دانش‌آموزان دختر پایه اول دبیرستان‌های دولتی تهران، مجله پژوهش در برنامه‌ریزی درسی. سال دهم، دوره دوم، شماره11، پیاپی 38: 85-72.
عابدینی، یاسمین؛ حجازی، الهه؛ سجادی، حسین و قاضی­طباطبایی، محمود (1389)؛ نقش واسطه‌ای درگیری تحصیلی در ارتباط بین اهداف اجتنابی-عملکردی و پیشرفت تحصیلی در دانش‌آموزان دختر در رشته‌ی علوم انسانی، مجله پژوهش‌های تربیتی و روانشناختی، دانشگاه اصفهان، سال چهارم. شماره اول، شماره پیاپی (9): 58-41.
عبداله‌زاده، علی‌اکبر (1392)؛ مقایسه کارایی دوره یادگیری ترکیبی با دوره‌های یادگیری الکترونیکی و حضوری در درس ریاضی در میان دانش‌آموزان دختر و پسر سال اول دبیرستان شهرستان اردبیل. مجله اندیشه‌های نوین تربیتی. دوره 9، شماره 2: 38-20.
غلامعلی­لواسانی، مسعود؛ اژه‌ای، جواد و داودی، مریم (1392)؛ تأثیر آموزش راهبردهای یادگیری خودتنظیمی بر مهارت‌های خودتنظیمی و درگیری تحصیلی و اضطراب امتحان، مجله روانشناسی، سال هفدهم، شماره 2: 182-169.
فرهادی، رضا (1384)؛ آموزش الکترونیکی پارادایم جدید در عصر اطلاعات. ماهنامه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات. دوره 21، شماره 1: 44-32.
قدم‌پور، عزت‌اله؛ سبزیان، سعیده؛ میرزایی‌فر، داود و کرمی، شجاع (1392)؛ بررسی رابطه درگیری تحصیلی با افت تحصیلی در بین دانش‌آموزان پسر و دختر سال اول دبیرستان‌های شهرستان اصفهان (پیش‌بینی افت تحصیلی بر اساس درگیری تحصیلی)، فصلنامه روانشناسی، دوره 10، زمستان 1393، شماره 34: 247-233.
محمدخانی، مسعود (1385)؛ یادگیری ترکیبی. مجله تدبیر. شماره 172، 5.
Bandoura, A.; Barbaranelli, C.; Caprar, G. V. & Pastorelli, C. (1996); Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67: 1206-1222.
Bayer, A. E. & Braxton, J. M. (1998); The normative structure of community college teaching. The Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 69, No. 2.
Bishop, M. (2010); Reinventing undergraduate education: A blue print for American’s research universities. http://notes.CC.sunysb.du/press/boyer. nsf.
Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R. (2006); The handbook of blended learning environments: Global perspectives, local designs, San Francisco: Jossey Bass / Pfeiffer.
Chapman, E. (2003); Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8 (13). Retrieved July 29, 2009 from http://PAREonline/getven.asp?v=8&n=13.
Dupeyrat, C. & Marian, C. (2005); Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement and achievement: A test of Dweck "s model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30: 43-59.
Eddy, E. R. & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003); Transfer in an e-learning context, In Holton, E. F. & Baldwin, T. T. (Eds.), Improving learning transfer in organizations, pp161-194, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Elliot, A. & McGregor, H.A. (2001); A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and social Psychology. 80: 501-519.
Feredricks, J. A.; Blumenfeld, P. C. & Paris, A. H. (2004); School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74: 59-109.
Garrison, D. R. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2004); Critical factors in student  satisfaction and success: Facilitating student, role adjustment in online communities of inquiry In Bourne.
Graham, C. R. (2006); Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future In: Bonk, C.J. & Graham, C. R. (Eds.), the handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, Pfeiffer San Francisco, pp. 3-2. 
Hyde, M. & Taylor, R. (2010); Learning context and students’ perceptions of context influence student learning approaches and outcomes in Animal Science 2. ACE group, Teaching and Educational/Development Institute. The University of Queensland. Au/ conferences/teach _confrence00/ papers / taylor_hyde.html teaching. The Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 69, No. 2.
Jasmine, G., Gregory A. D.liem, Andrew J. Martin & Susan C. (2012); Academic motivation, self- concept, engagement, and performance in high school: Key processes from a longitudinal perspective, Journal of Adolescence 35: 1111-1122.
Klem, A., & J. Connell, (2004); Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to Student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74 (7): 262-273.
Klopping, IM & Mckinney, E. (2004); Extending the technology acceptance model and the task-technology fit model to consumer e-commerce. Inf Technol Learn Perf J. 22(1): 35-48.
Lenn brink, E. A. & penterich, P. R. (2003); The role of self-efficacy belief in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and writing quarterly. 19: 119 -130.
Osguthorpe, T. R. & Graham, R. C. (2003). Blended learning environments, Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Vol. 4, No. 3: 227–233
Penterich, P. R. & Shunk, D. H. (1996); Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications.
Penterich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational psychology. 92: 544-555.
Procter, C. (2003); Blended learning in practice. Sal ford; Conference Proceedings of Education in Changing Environment.
Schlechty, P. C. (2005); Creating create schools: Six critical systems at the heart of educational innovation. Sanfrancisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Sciarra, D. T. & Seirup, H. J. (2008); The multidimensionality of school engagement and math achievement among racial groups. Professional School Counseling, 11.
Tinio, M. F. O. (2009); Academic Engagement Scale for Grade School Students. The assessment Handbook. Vol, 2: 64-75.
Twomey, A. (2004); Web-based teaching in nursing: lessons from the literature, Journal of Nurse Education Today, Vol. 24, No. 6: 452-8
Wang, M. T. & Holcombe, R. (2010); Adolescents' perceptions of classroom environment, school engagement, and academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 47: 633–662.
Williams, J. M. (2007); College student experiences questionnaire research program, 47th annual forum of the association for institutional research. Kansas city, M