The Analysis of Time Management and Students’ Self-efficacy of Blended Learning: A Case Study of College English Course in the University of Science and Technology Liaoning

Da Liu; Leehsing Lu

doi:10.60027/ijsasr.2024.4510

Authors

Da Liu Doctoral Candidate, Graduate School of Business and Advanced Technology Management Assumption University of Thailand, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4388-8429
Leehsing Lu Graduate School of Business and Advanced Technology Management Assumption University of Thailand, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4818-1440

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60027/ijsasr.2024.4510

Keywords:

Time Management; , XueXitong Platform;, Self-Efficacy; , Gantt Chart; , Engagement;, Blended Learning

Abstract

Background and Aim: This study delves into the realm of time management training within an English blended learning course, focusing on its influence on student self-efficacy and its subsequent effects on learning outcomes and perceptions. Anchored in the theories of Complex Adaptive Blended Learning Systems (CABLS), Goal Setting, and Self-efficacy, the research aims to uncover the combined impact of time management and self-efficacy enhancement on students' competence, and overall learning experiences. The objective is to assess how structured time management training, when integrated with blended learning strategies, can improve students’ self-efficacy.

Materials and Methods: Employing a mixed-methods approach, this study utilizes quantitative tools such as independent samples t-tests and multilinear regression analyses to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness in altering student’ self-efficacy (SE) and other factors like engagement (EN), autonomous learning (AL), teachers’ support (TS), social influence (SI), intention to use (IU) and self-efficacy (SE) levels. The intervention includes time management training facilitated through the Xuexitong Platform, aiming to leverage the advantages of blended learning. This methodological framework allows for a comprehensive analysis of the training's impact, providing a robust evaluation of changes in student engagement, autonomous learning, teachers’ support, social influence, and self-efficacy.

Results: The quantitative results revealed significant differences between the control and experimental groups in engagement (EN), autonomous learning (AL), teacher support (TS), social influence (SI), and self-efficacy (SE) except the factor intention to use (IU). In multilinear regression, engagement (EN), social influence (SI), and intention to use (IU) positively predicted higher self-efficacy, while autonomous learning (AL) had a minor negative effect. Teachers’ support (TS) lacked a statistically significant association with self-efficacy. The qualitative data supported and supplemented the findings, highlighting the above 6 factors’ improvement with high frequency in the related codings, and high occurrence of codings like improved in learning, enriching, interesting, growth, and motivation also showed the deep and multidimensional analysis of the findings, and managing time and goals effectively cultivated independence and responsibility. Overall, the qualitative insights provided nuanced, experiential perspectives complementing the quantitative model connecting factors like engagement, autonomous learning, teachers’ support, social influence, intention to use, and self-efficacy.

Conclusion: This research demonstrates the pivotal role of structured time management training in enhancing educational outcomes within blended learning environments. By demonstrating the benefits of integrating time management training, the study contributes novel insights into improving students’ development. The findings advocate for the development of more effective educational strategies and instructional designs, emphasizing the complex interplay between various factors and their impact on self-efficacy, especially AI integrated into blended learning. The study paves the way for further investigations into the integration of time management training and other self-efficacy enhancement techniques in blended learning environments. In this way, it encourages researchers to explore the potential synergies between time management, goal setting, and self-efficacy enhancement strategies in various educational contexts. Moreover, the findings can inform the development of more effective educational strategies and instructional designs, leading to improved pedagogical practices and student learning experiences in the long run.

References

Alfany, F. (2019). The effect of social influence and self-efficacy on the use of electronic payment systems. Journal of Payment Systems. 9(3), 12-5.

Anderson, J., & Li, F. (2023). Impact of AI-driven time management tools on student engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2), 142-158.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

Brown, A., & Green, T. (2022). Time management and self-efficacy in higher education: A review. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 229-246.

Chang, S., & Park, J. (2024). Enhancing student self-efficacy in blended learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 27(1), 102-119.

Chen, L., & Wang, M. (2021). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and intention to use blended learning platforms: A student perspective. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 24(1), 54-65.

Choi, E., Kim, C., & Lee, K. C. (2021). Consumer decision-making creativity and its relation to exploitation–exploration activities: Eye-tracking approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 557292. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.557292

Creswell, J.W., & Clark, V.L.P. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Davis, S., & Thompson, P. (2021). Enhancing autonomous learning in blended learning environments: Strategies and challenges. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 32(2), 123-142.

Dong, W.J., & Soransataporn, S. (2019). A study of self-efficacy of Chinese students in English study. PSAKU International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 1(1), 1–18.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557

eller, A., Lumineau, F., Mellewigt, T., Ariño, A. (2021) Alliance Governance Mechanisms in the Face of Disruption. Organization Science, 32(6), 1542-1570. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1437

Fetters, M.D., Curry, L.A., & Creswell, J.W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health services research, 48 (2), 2134-2156. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12117.

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/10.2307/3151312

Gantt, H.L. (1910). Work, Wages, and Profits: Their Influence on the Cost of Living, New York. New York, USA: Engineering Magazine Company, LCCN 10014590

Green, T., & Johnson, C. (2022). The role of teacher support in blended learning environments. Journal of Learning Technologies, 28(3), 34-49.

Johnson, A., & Lee, B. (2021). Strategies for enhancing student engagement in blended learning environments. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(2), 305-321.

Kim, D., & Johnson, R. (2022). Mixed methods in educational research: Exploring the benefits of integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 1-13.

Kim, J., & Park, H. (2023). Personalized learning strategies in adaptive blended learning systems. Computers & Education, 170, 103875.

Kim, S.J., & Choi, S.O. (2018). The Effects of Job Mismatch on Pay, Job Satisfaction, and Performance. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4, 49.https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc4040049

Kingsford-Smith, D., Alonzo, D., & Beswick, K. (2024). Perceived autonomy support and academic self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education.

Kumar, R., & Singh, M. (2021). Teacher support in blended learning: Student perceptions and outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 114(4), 271-284.

Lee, C., & Kim, D. (2024). Social influence and peer collaboration in blended learning: Effects on student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 207-230.

Lee, H. (2021). The role of time management in enhancing student self-efficacy in blended learning environments. Journal of Distance Education, 36(4), 48-66.

Lei, X. (2018). Student engagement and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Liu, Q., & Huang, Q. (2022). Visual planning in project-based learning: The role of Gantt charts in student engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(1), 453-471.

Liu, X., & Chen, Y. (2022). Interactive discussion boards and self-efficacy in blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 168, 104212.

Liu, X., & Wang, M. (2022). Enhancing autonomous learning and teacher support through educational technology interventions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 25(2), 26-42.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

MacAskill, A.F., Atkin, T.A., Kittler, J.T. (2010). Mitochondrial trafficking and the provision of energy and calcium buffering at excitatory synapses. Eur J Neurosci. 32(2),231-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07345.x.

Martin, L., & Thompson, P. (2024). Theoretical contributions to blended learning research: An interdisciplinary approach. Review of Educational Research, 94(3), 375-403.

Martinez, R., & Chung, H. (2024). Beyond general self-efficacy: The effects of time management training across academic disciplines. Educational Psychology Review, 36(4), 475-494.

Morse, J.M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press

Nguyen, H., & Tran, P. (2022). CABLS in action: Adapting to student needs in real-time. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 33(2), 213-234.

Nguyen, P., & Schwartz, D. (2024). Long-term effects of time management training on student outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Longitudinal Educational Research, 8(2), 89-107.

Patel, D., & Kumar, V. (2021). Time management practices and challenges in blended learning: A student perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 153-171.

Patel, S. (2023). The role of self-efficacy in blended learning resilience. Educational Researcher, 52(1), 22-35.

Patel, S., & O'Connor, L. (2023). The value of diverse research methodologies in exploring time management training. Review of Educational Methodology, 12(3), 210-230.

Phakamach, P., & Panjarattanakorn, D. (2024). The development of a blended learning management digital platform on entrepreneurship and ventures in education for graduate learners. Asian Education and Learning Review, 2(1), 1–16.

Rowbotham, M.C., Astin, J., Greene, K., Cummings, S.R. (2013) Interactive Informed Consent: Randomized Comparison with Paper Consents. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e58603. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058603.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V. et al. (2002). The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

Smith, J., & Jones, M. (2023). The global rise of blended learning in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 77(2), 143-160.

Smith, J., & Roberts, L. (2024). Investigating time management skills in blended learning courses. Journal of Higher Education, 95(5), 789-805.

Tan, L., & Lim, D. (2022). Gamification and student engagement in blended learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 92-105.

Taylor, A., & Khan, M. (2022). Enhancing survey methodology in educational research: A case for mixed question types and longitudinal follow-up. Journal of Research Methods in Education, 17(1), 33-52.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2011). Mixed methods: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In Denzin N. K., Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed, pp. 285-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Usher, E. L. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751-796. DOI: 10.3102/0034654308321456

Wang, Y., & Liu, Q. (2024). Goal setting and feedback in time management education for blended learning students. The Internet and Higher Education, 55, 100774.

Wong, A., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Enhancing learner autonomy through self-assessment tools in blended learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 211-229.

Zhang, Q., & Wong, L. (2023). Customized feedback mechanisms on the Xuexitong platform and their impact on student self-efficacy. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 106-120.

Zhao, F., & Lee, S. (2021). Implementing GST in blended learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 75, 101385.

Zhao, Y., & Wang, X. (2023). Complex Adaptive Systems and Goal Setting in Blended Learning: A Theoretical Exploration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(1), 31-49.