Effect of the Blended Learning Model in English Course on Students’ English Proficiency
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Traditional college English instruction in China has been largely teacher-centered, which often limits student engagement and language skill development. The growing adoption of blended learning—integrating face-to-face and digital instruction—has presented a promising solution. The Superstar mobile learning platform has emerged as a tool to support this innovative approach.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Superstar-based blended learning in enhancing English language proficiency among college students. It also sought to assess students' engagement and their perceptions of the blended learning environment.
Methodology: A quasi-experimental design was employed with two groups of students enrolled in a college English course at Shenyang University. The control group (n=60) received traditional instruction, while the treatment group (n=62) engaged in Superstar-based blended learning over eight weeks. Pre-tests and post-tests assessed listening, reading, and writing skills using the CET-4 framework. A 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire measured student engagement and perception. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26 through paired and independent samples t-tests.
Results: Students in the treatment group showed significantly greater improvements in listening, reading, and writing scores compared to the control group (p < .05). Engagement levels were significantly higher in the treatment group across behavioral, emotional, social, and cognitive dimensions. Perception data indicated strong agreement with the pedagogical, social, and technical design of the Superstar-based learning model.
Conclusion: The Superstar-based blended learning model significantly enhances college students’ English proficiency and engagement. Students positively perceived the platform’s instructional design and flexibility. These findings support the integration of mobile-based blended learning tools in college English instruction to improve 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 (ISSN: 2321–2454), 2(06).
Bath, D., & Bourke, J. (2010). Getting started with blended learning. Griffith University Press.
Bonk, C. J., Graham, C. R., & Cross, J. (2009). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(4), 181–181.
Boyd, G., & Kasraie, N. (2013). Can MOOC fires bring light to shadow education? International Journal of Learning and Development, 3(4), 87–95. http://dx.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. Chinese Ministry of Education. (2020). The College English Teaching Guide.
Fukuda, S. T., & Yoshida, H. (2013). Time is of the essence: Factors encouraging out-of-class study time. ELT Journal, 67(1), 31–40.
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, 425–442.
Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., & Spring, K. J. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. Internet & Higher Education, 20(1), 20–34.
Hamad, M. M. (2017). Using WhatsApp to enhance students' learning of the English language: Experience to share. Higher Education Studies, 7(4), 74–87.
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.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71–94.
McCarthy, M. A., & Murphy, E. A. (2010). Blended learning: Beyond initial uses to helping to solve real-world academic problems. Journal of College Education & Learning, 7(6), 67–70.
Medina, L. C. (2018). Blended learning: Deficits and prospects in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1).
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15–23.
NEEA: 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, 5(1), 435–449.
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. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 5(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001
Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., & Spring, K. A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75(3), 185–195.
Puentedura, R. R. (2009). As we may teach: Educational technology, from theory into practice. https://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/as-we-may-teach-educational/id380294705
Reima, A. J. (2021). Mobile audiobooks, listening comprehension, and EFL college students. International Journal of Research, 9(4), 410–423.
SCET. (2016). Syllabus for College English Test - Band Four (CET-4) (2016 Revision). (2016). 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, 667–677.
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 Organization, 12, 394–413.
Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Palgrave Macmillan.
Syllabus for College English Test - Band Four (CET-4) (2016 Revision). (2016). https://cet.neea.edu.cn/html1/folder/19081/5123-1.htm
Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. American Society for Training & Development.
Valiathan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. American Society for Training & Development.
Xiao, Y. M. (2015). The development of the College English test and its influence upon College English teaching. China Examinations, 5, 59. https://doi.org/10.19360/j.cnki.11-3303/g4.2015.08.008
Xiu, X. B. (2001). The developing course of the College English teaching and learning in China. Journal of Science of Jiamusi University, 19(5), 161.
Zhang, F., & She, M. (2021, January). The effectiveness of “Superstar” in College English teaching. In 2020, 3rd International Seminar on Education Research and Social Science (ISERSS 2020) (pp. 487–490). Atlantis Press.
