The Effect of the Hybrid Learning Environment on the Learning Experience and Engagement of Mature Students in Thailand

Baramee  Tangtrongchit

doi:10.60027/ijsasr.2024.4451

Authors

Baramee Tangtrongchit Doctoral Candidate, Graduate School of Business and Advanced Technology Management Assumption University of Thailand, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4625-4907

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60027/ijsasr.2024.4451

Keywords:

Academic Self-Efficacy; , Hybrid Learning;, Mature Students; , Perceived Learing; , Cognitive Engageement; , Weblei Framework

Abstract

Background and Aim: Mature students have unique strengths and weaknesses compared to traditional students, including higher levels of self-directed learning and motivation, paired with more time and resource limitations, making online and hybrid learning very popular. However, the quality of the hybrid learning environment could impact learning outcomes. The research investigates the role of hybrid learning environments in the learning experience and cognitive engagement of Thai mature students using the Web-Based Learning Environment Instrument (WEBLEI) assessment framework for online environments.

Materials and Methods: An online survey was conducted among mature students at a Thai university (n = 290). Data was collected using a questionnaire based on the WEBLEI framework. The data analysis used descriptive statistics and Structural Equation Modelling for hypothesis testing.

Results: Hybrid learning environment characteristics of access, interaction, response, and results significantly influenced perceived learning. Perceived learning and academic self-efficacy influenced cognitive engagement. Academic self-efficacy fully mediated the relationship between perceived learning and cognitive engagement.

Conclusion: The hybrid learning environment and its characteristics have a direct influence on the learning experience of mature students, with interaction having a particularly strong effect. Students respond to interaction, feedback, and critical reflection about their contributions, with course design and structure, convenience, efficiency, and autonomy on participation also playing a role. To influence cognitive engagement, improving the online learning environment to support perceived learning and particularly academic self-efficacy is critical.

References

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 71–81). Academic Press.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Bayoumy, H.M.M., & Alsayed, S. (2021). Investigating Relationship of Perceived Learning Engagement, Motivation, and Academic Performance Among Nursing Students: A Multisite Study. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 12, 351–369. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S272745

Berry, G.R. (2018). Learning from the learners: Student perception of the online classroom. Quarterly Review of Online Education, 19(3), 39–56.

Brace, I., & Bolton, K. (2022). Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure, and write survey material for effective market research. 5th edition. Kogan Page.

Buelow, J.R., Barry, T., & Rich, L.E. (2018). Supporting learning engagement with online students. Online Learning, 22(4), 313-340. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i4.1384

Bunyakiati, P., & Voravittayathorn: (2013). Applying UTCC Hybrid Learning in the designing of a learning framework for students with disabilities and high-potential students. University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce Journal, 33(3), 192–205.

Byrne, B.M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600219

Chandra, V., & Fisher, D. L. (2009). Students’ perceptions of a blended web-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-008-9051-6.

Chang, D., & Chien, W. (2015). Determining the Relationship between Academic Self-efficacy and Student Engagement by Meta-analysis. Conference: 2015 International Conference on Education Reform and Modern Management. DOI:10.2991/ermm-15.2015.37

Chang, V., & Fisher, D. (2003). The validation and application of a new learning environment instrument for online learning in higher education. In M. S. Khine & D. Fisher (Eds.), Technology-Rich Learning Environments (pp. 1–20). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812564412_0001

Chen, B. H., & Chiou, H.-H. (2014). Learning style, sense of community, and learning effectiveness in the hybrid learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680971

Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement (OSE) Scale. Online Learning, 19(4), 1–15.

Donkin, R., & Rasmussen, R. (2021). Student Perception and the Effectiveness of Kahoot!: A Scoping Review in Histology, Anatomy, and Medical Education. Anatomical Sciences Education, 14(5), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2094

Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046

Eliveria, A., Serami, L., Famorca, L., & Cruz, J.D. (2019). Investigating students’ engagement in a hybrid learning environment. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 482, 012011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/482/1/012011

Fiorini, L. A., Borg, A., & Debono, M. (2022). Part-time adult students’ satisfaction with online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 28(2), 354–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714221082691

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld: 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.

Gregersen, A.F.M., & Nielsen, K.B. (2023). Not quite the ideal student: mature students’ experiences of higher education. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 32(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2022.2120525

Gupta, A., & Pathania: (2021). To study the impact of Google Classroom as a platform of learning and collaboration at the teacher education level. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10294-1

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2016). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson.

Halverson, L.R., & Graham, C.R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145-178. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481

Hamlin, M.D. (2020). Enabling Adult Learning Advantage in Online Learning Environments. In Building and Maintaining Adult Learning Advantage. (pp. 187–208). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4516-4.ch008

Horvat, A., Dobrota, M., Krsmanovic, M., & Cudanov, M. (2015). Student perception of Moodle learning management system: A satisfaction and significance analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(4), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.788033

Johnson, E., Morwane, R., Dada, S., Pretorius, G., & Lotriet, M. (2018). Adult Learners’ Perspectives on Their Engagement in a Hybrid Learning Postgraduate Programme. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 66(2), 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2018.1469071

Kornpitack, P., & Sawmong, S. (2022). Empirical analysis of factors influencing student satisfaction with online learning systems during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. Heliyon, 8(3), e09183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09183

Krieg, E.J. (2020). Statistics and data analysis for social science. 2nd edition. SAGE Publications.

Linder, K.E. (2017). Fundamentals of Hybrid Teaching and Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 149, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20222

Muris, P. (2001). A Brief Questionnaire for Measuring Self-Efficacy in Youths. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23, 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010961119608

Nørgård, R.T., & Hilli, C. (2022). Hyper-Hybrid Learning Spaces in Higher Education. In E. Gil, Y. Mor, Y. Dimitriadis, & C. Köppe (Eds.), Hybrid Learning Spaces (pp. 25–41). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88520-5_3

Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement, and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y

Osam, E.K., Bergman, M., & Cumberland, D.M. (2017). An Integrative Literature Review on the Barriers Impacting Adult Learners’ Return to College. Adult Learning, 28(2), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159516658013

Panyajamorn, T., Kohda, Y., Chongphaisal, P., & Supnithi, T. (2016). The effectiveness and suitability of MOOCs hybrid learning: A case study of public schools in Thai rural area. 2016 11th International Conference on Knowledge, Information and Creativity Support Systems (KICSS), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/KICSS.2016.7951449

Plailek, T., Essien, A.M., & Sawangdee, Y. (2022). Enhancement of Undergraduate Students’ Competency in Creating English Learning Innovation through Hybrid Learning with Peer Coaching. Journal of Educational Issues, 8(1), 250. https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v8i1.19600

Purahong, B., Sithiyopasakul, S., Sithiyopasakul, P., Anuwongpinit, T., Archevapanich, T., & Vichaiva, P. (2021). Hybrid learning during the COVID-19 pandemic of engineering students at KMITL, Thailand. 2021 6th International STEM Education Conference (iSTEM-Ed), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/iSTEM-Ed52129.2021.9625090

Ramirez, S., Teten, S., Mamo, M., Speth, C., Kettler, T., & Sindelar, M. (2022). Student perceptions and performance in a traditional, flipped classroom, and online introductory soil science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 70(1), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2021.1965419

Rodríguez, C., Rahimzadeh, V., Bartlett-Esquilant, G., & Carver, T. (2022). Insights for Teaching During a Pandemic: Lessons From a Pre-COVID-19 International Synchronous Hybrid Learning Experience. Family Medicine, 54(6), 471–476. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2022.319716

Roos, J.M., & Baudry, S. (2021). Confirmatory factor analysis. SAGE Publications.

Şahi̇n, M., & Aybek, E. (2020). Jamovi: An Easy-to-Use Statistical Software for the Social Scientists. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 6(4), 670–692. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.661803

Saichaie, K. (2020). Blended, Flipped, and Hybrid Learning: Definitions, Developments, and Directions. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 164, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20428

Schunk, D.H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The Development of Academic Self-Efficacy. In Development of Achievement Motivation (pp. 15–31). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50003-6

Sireci, S.G. (1998). Gathering and analyzing content validity data. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea0504_2

Skelton, D. (2009). Blended learning environments: Students report their preferences. 22nd Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications, Napier, New Zealand, 105–114.

Tobins, K.G. (1998). Qualitative perceptions of learning environments on the World Wide Web. In J. B. Fraser & K. G. Tobins (Eds.), Web-based instruction (pp. 139–162). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tobins, K.G., & Fraser, J.B. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In J. B. Fraser & K. G. Tobins (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 623–640). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Unal, Z., & Unal, A. (2017). Comparison of Student Performance, Student Perception, and Teacher Satisfaction with Traditional versus Flipped Classroom Models. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1049a

Venegas-Muggli, J.I. (2020). Higher education dropout of non-traditional mature freshmen: The role of sociodemographic characteristics. Studies in Continuing Education, 42(3), 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1652157

Xiao, J., Sun‐Lin, H., Lin, T., Li, M., Pan, Z., & Cheng, H. (2020). What makes learners a good fit for hybrid learning? Learning competencies as predictors of experience and satisfaction in hybrid learning space. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1203–1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12949

Yang, Y., Li, G., Su, Z., & Yuan, Y. (2021). Teacher’s Emotional Support and Math Performance: The Chain Mediating Effect of Academic Self-Efficacy and Math Behavioral Engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 651608. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.651608

Zhao, Y., Zheng, Z., Pan, C., & Zhou, L. (2021). Self-esteem and Academic Engagement Among Adolescents: A Moderated Mediation Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 690828. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.690828