Challenges for collaborative blended learning in undergraduate students
Abstract
This study reports a quasi-experiment in collaborative blended learning (CBL) with undergraduate students who, despite being in a world-leading, enriched digital environment, were new to collaboration and CBL. The mixed-methods research found that only small improvements to students’ CBL took place over time, and explanations for this are proffered. The study found that the students needed specific and intensive instruction, practice, and development in how to collaborate, both with and without blended learning. Students discovered and appreciated the benefits, pitfalls, and challenges to collaboration and CBL largely by doing it: learning from experience. Collaboration and CBL do not release teachers from their instructional and pedagogical roles; rather, they place teachers and face-to-face instruction and practice in collaboration and CBL in classrooms, at the heart of effective practice and improvements here. Implications for teaching are suggested.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most previous studies reported that blended learning could improve learning engagement.
“Most previous studies reported that blended learning could improve learning engagement.”
From A meta-analysis of effects of blended learning on performance, attitude, achievement, and engagement across different countries (2023) · cites this paper as Monteiro and Morrison, 2014
Cites
The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995) · Computer Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5 · Cited by 2,274 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The processes of collaborative learning are neither homogeneous nor predictable (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995) and do not happen automatically simply by putting students together to work.”
BackgroundSocial loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 · Cited by 2,196 · see citing works
Designing Randomised Trials in Health, Education and the Social Sciences
Torgerson, D. J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2008) · doi:10.1057/9780230583993 · Cited by 366 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cao, W. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1212056 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
“This instruction can help students understand the benefits and challenges associated with each approach, ultimately leading to improved learning outcomes (Monteiro and Morrison, 2014).”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Monteiro, E., & Morrison, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Saint Joseph (CN)
- Macau University of Science and Technology (MO)
- Corresponding author
- Morrison, Keith
- Venue
- Educational Research and Evaluation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-11-17
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 7-8
- Pages
- 564-591
- ISSN
- 1380-3611 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-4187
- OpenAlex
- W2028869549
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2024: 11 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 8.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Research and Evaluation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
- Keywords
- undergraduate students, collaboration skills, blended learning, teacher role, face-to-face teaching, digital learning environments, experiential learning, instructional practices
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review