Effect of the Blended Learning Model in English Course on Students’ English Proficiency
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aims: Traditional college English instruction in China has predominantly followed a teacher-centered approach, which often restricts student participation, interaction, and the development of practical language skills. With the rapid advancement of educational technology, blended learning—combining face-to-face instruction with digital learning environments—has become an increasingly effective strategy for improving teaching and learning outcomes. The SuperStar Learning mobile learning platform is an innovative tool that supports flexible, interactive learning experiences. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Superstar-based blended learning in enhancing college students’ English language proficiency. In addition, the study examined students’ engagement levels and their perceptions of the blended learning environment, including its pedagogical effectiveness, social interaction, and technical usability.
Methodology: A quasi-experimental research design was employed involving two groups of students enrolled in a college English course at Shenyang University. The control group (n = 60) received traditional classroom instruction, while the treatment group (n = 62) participated in Superstar-based blended learning over eight weeks. Students’ English proficiency was assessed through pre-tests and post-tests based on the College English Test Band 4 (CET-4) framework, focusing on listening, reading, and writing skills. A structured questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale was administered to evaluate student engagement and perceptions of the blended learning environment. The questionnaire measured behavioral, emotional, social, and cognitive engagement, as well as perceptions of the platform’s instructional and technical design. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26 through paired samples t-tests and independent samples t-tests to compare learning outcomes between the two groups.
Results: The findings revealed that students in the treatment group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in listening, reading, and writing scores compared with students in the control group (p < .05). Furthermore, engagement levels in the treatment group were significantly higher across behavioral, emotional, social, and cognitive dimensions. Students also expressed positive perceptions of the Superstar-based blended learning model, particularly regarding its pedagogical structure, interactive learning environment, and technical functionality. These results indicate that the integration of mobile-assisted blended learning can effectively enhance both language proficiency and learner engagement in college English instruction.
Conclusion: The study concludes that the Superstar-based blended learning model significantly improves college students’ English language proficiency and learning engagement. Students positively perceived the flexibility, accessibility, and instructional effectiveness of the platform. The findings support the integration of mobile-assisted blended learning technologies into college English education as a means of promoting more interactive, student-centered, and effective learning experiences. Future educational practices should continue to incorporate digital learning platforms to strengthen language instruction and improve overall educational outcomes.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
AbuSa'aleek, A. O. (2014). A review of emerging technologies: Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL). Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning, 2(6). https://ajouronline.com/index.php/AJEEL/article/view/1520
Bath, D., & Bourke, J. (2010). Getting started with blended learning. Griffith University Press. https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/267178/Getting_started_with_blended_learning_guide.pdf
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118269558
Boyd, G., & Kasraie, N. (2013). Can MOOC fires bring light to shadow education? International Journal of Learning and Development, 3(4), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v3i4.4111
Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., & Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187–199. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/bruff_0613.htm
Chinese Ministry of Education. (2020). The College English Teaching Guide. Chinese Ministry of Education.
Fukuda, S. T., & Yoshida, H. (2013). Time is of the essence: Factors encouraging out-of-class study time. ELT Journal, 67(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs054
Garg, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence and its impact on higher education in the post-COVID era. University News, 58(36), 2–6.
Geçer, A., & Dağ, F. (2012). A blended learning experience. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 425–442. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ978446.pdf
Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.004
Hamad, M. M. (2017). Using WhatsApp to enhance students' learning of the English language: Experience to share. Higher Education Studies, 7(4), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n4p74
Hass, A., & Joseph, M. (2018). Investigating different options in course delivery—Traditional vs online: Is there another option? The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(4), 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-04-2018-0039
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.1.71
McCarthy, M. A., & Murphy, E. A. (2010). Blended learning: Beyond initial uses to help solve real-world academic problems. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(6), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v7i6.126
Medina, L. C. (2018). Blended learning: Deficits and prospects in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3100
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001
National Education Examinations Authority. (2023). National College English Test Committee of CET-4 and CET-6. https://cet.neea.edu.cn/html1/folder/19081/5123-1.htm
Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (2005). Knowledge awareness for computer-assisted language learning using handhelds. International Journal of Learning Technology, 1(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2005.007055
Peake, J., & Reynolds, A. (2020). Implementing social media bridges for student-teacher chasms created during the COVID-19 pandemic. CEA Critic, 82(3), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1353/cea.2020.0022
Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 5(1), 4–14. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1116773
Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011
Puentedura, R. R. (2009). As we may teach: Educational technology, from theory into practice. http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
Reima, A. J. (2021). Mobile audiobooks, listening comprehension, and EFL college students. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 9(4), 410–423.
SCET. (2016). Syllabus for College English Test-Band Four (CET-4) (2016 revision). https://cet.neea.edu.cn/html1/folder/19081/5123-1.htm
Seery, M. K., & Donnelly, R. (2012). Implementing pre-lecture resources to reduce in-class cognitive load: A case study for higher education chemistry. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 667–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01237.x
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (1st ed.). Continuum.
Sembiring, M. G. (2018). Validating student satisfaction with a blended learning scheme in the Universitas Terbuka setting. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 12(4), 394–413. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2018.095185
Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Macmillan.
Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. American Society for Training & Development. https://www.astd.org/
Xiao, Y. M. (2015). The development of the College English test and its influence upon College English teaching. China Examinations, 5, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.19360/j.cnki.11-3303/g4.2015.08.008
Xiu, X. B. (2001). The development of college English teaching and learning in China. Journal of Science of Jiamusi University, 19(5), 161–163.
Zhang, F., & She, M. (2021). The effectiveness of “Superstar” in College English teaching. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Seminar on Education Research and Social Science (ISERSS 2020) (pp. 487–490). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210120.093
