See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276345062

The Effect of Blended Learning Environments on Student Motivation and

Student Engagement: A Study on Social Studies Course

Article  in  Eğitim ve Bilim · February 2015

DOI: 10.15390/EB.2015.2592

CITATIONS READS

25 4,813

2 authors:

Mustafa Saritepeci Hasan Cakir

Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Gazi University
42 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   311 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

To determine the effects of design based learning practices in the scope of technology integration on TPACK levels of prospective teachers View project

DERS SÜREÇLERİNDE ARTTIRILMIŞ GERÇEKLİK ETKİNLİKLERİNİN KULLANILMASININ ÖĞRENEN KATILIMINA ETKİSİNİN İNCELENMESİ: BİLGİ VE İLETİŞİM
TEKNOLOJİLERİ DERSİ ÖRNEĞİ View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mustafa Saritepeci on 14 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Education and Science
Vol 40 (2015) No 177 203-216

The Effect of Blended Learning Environments on Student's Academic

Achievement and Student Engagement: A Study on Social Studies Course *

Mustafa Sarıtepeci 1, Hasan Çakır 2

Abstract Keywords
The purpose of this study is to analyze effects of blended learning Blended Learning
environment on middle school student's’ engagement and Student Engagement
academic achivement. Pretest-posttest control group quasi Academic Achivement
experimental design was utilized. The study was conducted with Social Studies
52 students in experimental group and 55 students in control
group. According to the results of this study in blended learning Article Info
environment had meaningful increase in average academic Received: 02.05.2013
achievement when compared to students in face-to-face learning
Accepted: 11.13.2014
environment. In addition, blended learning has a medium level
Online Published: 02.15.2015
effect size on students' levels of academic achievement. No
meaningful statistical differences were detected for students’
engagement between both groups. However, in blended learning
approach, average development of student engagement showed a
meaningful rise when compared to face-to-face learning approach. DOI: 10.15390/EB.2015.2592

Introduction
Levels of student engagement in the teaching and learning process is one of the most important
indicators of the quality of teaching activities. Participation of students to explicit or implicit teaching
and learning, indicates that a sufficient level of quality of the teaching methods were utilized. Large
part of the students in courses can not achieve engagement that are problem in the teaching activities
carried out; in other words, it is an indication that a low quality of teaching activities (Senemoglu, 2009).
Failing to ensure engagement of students in school courses are the most important and continuing
problems for the students and teachers (Newman, 1992).
Social Studies are examples of the courses which student participation cannot be achieved
sufficiently. Social Studies course aims to provide students with social character, but it is usually limited
to the transmission of factual information within the boundaries of the classroom. The students in this
process appears to be inactive. In contrast, in an effective Social Studies class, students are required to
participate actively in the physical and mental learning process (Sönmez, 1997; Karakuş, 2006).
Consequently, in order for the students to be successful in the Social Studies course, one of the most
important prerequisites for the Social Studies course of the student's course to be successful is to ensure
that students the actively participate inion of the student's learning process. Because, students who
participating in the learning environment as a whole are easier to learn and a large part of what they
learn is permanent (Sönmez, 1997).

* This study is based on the Master’s Thesis by Sarıtepeci (2012).

1 Ministry Of National Education, Turkey, [email protected]
2 Gazi University, Education and Science, Department of Computer and Instructional Technologies Education, Turkey,

[email protected]

203
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

In studies conducted in the field of social studies as discussed from time to time,that there are
limiting factors for actively participating in learning activities in social studies for example the extensive
curriculum, crowded classes, limited lesson time, and asthus generally students are generally passive
state in courses. Therefore, student academics engagement and academic success are adversely affected
(Freeman & Lestik, 1988 cited in Güven 2005; Altınışık, 2001; Heafner, 2004; Arslan 2006; Karakuş, 2006).
As a solution to these limitations experienced in social studies, it can be presented the use of
blended learning environments that combines the traditional face to face learning and e-learning was
proposed as a solution (Bersin, 2004; Gülümbay, 2005; National Institute of Corrections [NIC], 2009).
Ministry of Education's Board of Education of the recommendation for the use of computer assisted
instruction in teaching social studies to supports that view. Briefly, according to Social Studies
curriculum issued in 2005, this course in teaching social studies should be supported by use utilizing of
technological tools such as CD-ROMs, History and Social Studies simulation programs, multimedia, the
Iinternet and hypermedia is recommended to teachers (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB], 2005).
According to Osguthorpe & Graham (2003), blended learning is combiningcombines beneficial
aspects of face to face learning with online learning in a balanced way is to get the maximum benefit of
both learning environmentsbeneficial aspects of face to face learning with online learning. Thus,
blended learning, is without loss of face to face interaction in learning activities, is to support the
teaching-learning process at different any times and different anywhere places offering the some
conveniences provided by online learning. In addition, blended learning is reducingreduce the impact
of curriculum differences between regions to of teachers and students, it is allowing them to use the
same teaching and learning materials. Such learning environments, due to changes in teaching practices
and the qualifications of teachers in schools can help reduce the differences in successachievement. As
a result, blended learning is potentially more powerful than both traditional face to face learning and
completely online learning. In summary, the strength of the blended learning approach is the flexibility
of this model and pedagogical activities (Aycock, Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003;
Colis & Moonen, 2001 cited in Jordan & Rovai 2004; Çakır, 2006).
It also supported the various researchers in their studies were carried out studies to compare e-
learning and face-to-face teaching activities. These study results, e-learning and face-to-face learning
environment that the student learning, satisfaction and one is superior to another in terms of academic
achievement did not reveal any strong evidence (Dillon & Gabbard, 1998; Bolliger & Martindale, 2001;
Neuhauser, 2002; Shapiro & Niederhauser, 2004). In terms of student satisfaction and student learning
outcomes, Ecomparing e-learning and face-to-face learning environmentsin terms of student
satisfaction and student learning outcomes has been demonstrated that no significant differences in
different topics and in many studies with different sample sizes (Dennis and others, 2007). On the other
hand there are lots of studies that blended learning demonstrated more positive outcomes than
traditional learning which called face to face learning or e-learning (Acelajado, 2011; Boyle et. al. 2003;
Jordan & Rovai, 2004; Sarıtepeci & Yıldız, 2013; Taradi, Taradi, Radic, & Pokrajac, 2005; Ünsal, 2007;
Utts, Sommer, Acredolo, Maher, & Matthews, 2003).
There are many studies that the extent and reasons stated in the literature to support the use of
the returns of the blended learning teaching-learning processenvironments. In one of these studies, Usta
(2007) has revealed that according compared to online learning, blended learning is a positive impact
on academic success and persistence of learning the lessoncontent. Sarıtepeci and Yıldız (2013) stated
that blended learning has had positive effect on active participation of students in courses and
development of students' motivation towards the course. Similarly, in another study that examined
blended learning have impact on the teach of matematics, blended learning approach were concluded
to be more effective than traditional face to face learning approach (Acelajado, 2011). In addition, this
study shown that blended learning was brought into interested, enjoyable and an attractive activity for
students in mathematics learning (Acelajado, 2011).

204
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

Wang, Fong & Choy (2007) did conducted a research that investigated the effects of the use of
blended learning environment on the educational process encountered in significant difficulties in
teaching programming. The survey results are analyzed, blended learning has been shown to provide
greater flexibility in programming courses both in teaching and in learning. In addition, it was
concluded that students' academic achievement in programming courses was shown greatly significant
development.
Generally, blended learning-related research were investigated that blended learning impact on
student learning outcomes or students opinions towards the blended learning. Theise studies of the
overall learning process although exceptions has affected positively. In addition, a majority of these
studies are target secondary school students and studies for high school students (Boyle at. al. 2003; Utts
at. al. 2003; Taradi, Taradi, Radic & Pokrajac, 2005; Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2006; Wang, Fong & Choy, 2007;
Ünsal, 2007; Karadeniz & Uluyol, 2009; Chen, Lambert & Guidry, 2010; Acelajado, 2011). However, such
studies are limited in the secondary level school level. The positive results of the use of blended learning
is expected to be bring positive result of secondary school courses when Computer Assisted Instruction
[CAI] is considered to be much more effective in secondary school according to higher education and
high school (Bersin, 2004; Senemoğlu, 2009). In addition, learning activities in primary and secondary
education will be moved to the online environment, just next to the classroom, as a result of FATİH
project and subsequently the tablet distribution to students integrated into this project. For example,
students will carry out e-government education system (EBA, http://www.eba.gov.tr) training on
courses supplied with this Project (MEB, 2012). In a sense, with this project, use of blended learning
environment will become a necessity in primary and secondary education institutions. Therefore,
studies examining the effects of blended learning environment in primary and secondary level is are
expected to play a guiding role in achieving the objectives of this project.
Implementation of blended learning is thought to be involved in the solution of such problems
which is generally limited to the activities of the students, in courses such as social studies of seen by
students as boring and stagnant. The studies showing that the positive outcomes of the use of
educational technology in social studies courses are also strengthens this argument (Heafner, 2004;
Arslan, 2006; Tankut, 2008). In addition, it can be argued for students at the middle school level to be
more open to innovation and transformation will facilitate their adaptation and the adopt to the new
teaching environment. In this case, the use of blended learning courses in middle school levels
compared to high school and higher education can be achieved much more positive results. From these
movements, it has been identified as a problem situation that the whether use of blended learning
environment in social studies can whether the have effect on academic achievement and students
engagement.
Purpose
The aim of this research is to analyze the effect of blended learning environment on middle
school students' engagement and academic achivement. Under the general purpose of this research, the
following sub-objectives are to be investigated:
 Is there a significant difference between posttest achievement scores of students in the
experimental group and the control group of students?
 Is there a significant difference between pretest and posttest student engagement scores of
students in the experimental group and the control group of students?
 Is there a significant difference between the developments of experimental and control
group student engagement?

205
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

Method
Quasi-experimental design with pretest - posttest control group design was used in this study
to examine effect of blended learning environment on middle school students engagement and
academic achievement. 7th grade 52 students in the experimental group is given the blended training
and 7th grade 55 students in the control group is given the traditional face to face training.
Data Collection Tool
Data collection tool in the study; "Information Technology Proficiency Level Perception Scale,
Academic Achievement Tests and Engagement Scale" is used. "Information Technology Proficiency
Survey" and "Engagement Survey" used in the study were created by researchers. Academic
Achievement Tests are prepared by three field experts. The reliability and validity study of scales were
first consulted to experts to carry out the necessary arrangements for the scale. After from expert opinion
based on the arrangements made, 73 students attending middle school 6th grade took the pilot survey
to determine the reliability of the scales.
"Information Technology Proficiency Level Perception Scale" was developed by the researchers.
The scale consists of 15 items. Reliability level of the scale was calculated with cronbach alpha coefficient
and it was .86.
"Engagement Scale" alpha coefficients for internal consistency ranged from .74 to .89. Overall
reliability coefficient of the Engagement Scale in the results of reliability analysis was calculated as .81.
The subscales of Engagement Scale of the reliability coefficients , respectively; it was found active and
collaborative learning [ACL] .89, student's forced level [SFL] .74, the feedback level and students-
teachers interaction [FLSTI] .80.
In addition, from the pilot implementation group a validity study was conducted focus groups
with five students. These efforts have been done to make corrections on the scale items and materials.
The reliability and validity of academic achievement tests have been consulted with three
experts. Items in the scale have been re-edited and finalized based on as the experts opinion. In addition,
the scope of validity is provided by experts.
Surveys and scales used in the study can be accessed with more detailed information about
development and reliability, validity studies from the Sarıtepeci (2012)'s thesis.
Participants
Study group consists of 7th grade students in four middle schools located in Ankara's Ayas
district. It was not used any criteria in determining the experimental and control groups constituting
the research's working group, participants were selected through convenient sampling method (Arıkan,
2011). Purposive sampling refers to the researcher trying to provide the level of care to represent the
universe, he/she determinates which is the most suitable in terms of the cost, labor and time of sample
for himself/herself (Arıkan, 2011;). To determination of classes located in the experimental and control
groups was chosen randomly. Working group of the study was consisted of 115 students including 55
in experimental group and 60 in the control group from 4 middle schools the 7th grade students located
in Ankara Ayas district. Three students from the experimental group and the five students from control
group was excluded from the study. Six students were excluded from the experiment because two of
these students is insufficient reading literacy and six of these students do not always attend the course.
After this process, it was consisted of 52 participants in the experimental group and 55 participants in
the control group.

206
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

Students in experimental and control group were examined to check group resemblences in
terms of demographic characteristics of; gender, mother and father education, SBS scores of 2010, and
information technology competence perceptions. The distribution by gender of the students in the
experimental and control group in the study has been checked with the chi-square test to determine
whether there is a difference. The analyzes conducted the significance value of p is found to be p = 0.39.
Accordingly, it can be said that there was no significant difference between groups in gender
distribution. Participants in the two groups were compared in terms of parents' educational levels.
According to the t-test results, there was no significant difference levels of mother education between
two groups (t(105) = 1.47, p>0.05). Similarly, there was no significant difference for the level of father
education between the experimental and control group students (t(105) = 1.59, p>0.05). In other words,
the students in the experimental and control groups said to be similar in terms of parents' education
level.

Independent samples t-test was used to compare the level of perception about the competences
of information technology of experimental and control group students at the beginning of the study.
According to the results, the experimental group students information technology efficacy perception
average level of score is 4.14; the control group students information technology efficacy perception
level mean score is 4.09. Accordingly, the students' information technologies competency levels
perceptions were not found significantly different between the experimental and control groups (t(105)
= 0.44, p>0.05). Accordingly, the students in the two groups in terms of information technology efficacy
perception levels said to be similar to each other at the beginning of the study.

2010 SBS scores and achievements pre-test was used for students in the experimental and
control groups in terms of academic achievement demonstrate the similarities and differences prior to
the experiment. When analyzed 2010 SBS scores, SBS average score of students in the experimental
group is 343.79; SBS is the average score of the students in the control group is 327.90. According to this
result, the students in the experimental and control groups were not found significantly different
between scores of SBS 2010 (t(107) = 1.07, p>.05). Accordingly, it can be said that the academic success
of the group are similar to the extent that no significant difference in the pre-study.

Implementation Process
Implementation process of the study consisted of a 6-week period conducted in Social Studies
course.

Students's Computer and Internet access in the blended learning group when examined;
netbooks were distributed to 7th grade students in a school of the experimental group within the scope
of European School Network project (24 people). Students are provided with wireless access to the
Internet in the school that this project is being carried out. In this way, students gained the opportunity
to carry out activities in the course of the web space from any location with internet access. In addition,
information technology laboratories were opened for student to use located in schools containing the
experimental group for the students who are not able to connect to the internet at home and are not in
this project. Laboratories were provided internet access to students kept open during lunch breaks and
after school hours.

207
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

Moodle (Modular Object Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) open source course
management system was used in the web portion of the blended learning process. Because Moodle is a
free, open source, and it is easy to use, it was selected as the platfom for blended learning environment..
A four-hour training to students in experimental group directed to the use of course web space
constituting teaching management system (Moodle) prior to implementation. Environment records of
student and the sample activities within the scope of this training was built. Necessary explanations
and demonstrations are made when students experienced problems in parts of the process. Thus, the
students were ready to use the blended learning environment during the experimental process.
A total of six hours of training related to the Moodle environment aimed at course teachers were
given. After this training is completed, face to face and online activities were determined for each group
with course teachers. Reading list (presentation etc.), subject screening test, individual assignments,
group work (such as creating the wiki) and blog activities took place in every week in teachers' part of
the blended learning environment in the process of six weeks of application. A narrative with projection,
to explanations, questions - answers and discussion took place in the part of the face-to-face of blended
learning weekly basis. It was included lecture with projection, presentations, explanations, questions -
answers and discussion in traditional face-to-face learning environment on a weekly basis. Course
teachers carried out the implementation process in both groups. Also, researcher guided the teachers
who was carrying out the application in this process.
Analysis of Data
Analysis of data collected after the experimental procedure was performed using the program
of SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Independent samples t-test was used in the analysis of
data collected after the experimental procedure in order to determine the differences between the
experimental and control groups. Furthermore, Cohen's d values were calculated to determine the effect
size of the differences resulting from the t-test comparisons.

208
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

Results
Findings Related to the First Sub-Objective
- Is there a significant difference between posttest achievement scores of students in the experimental
group and the control group of students?
Located in the experimental and control group students' academic achievement post-test scores
are presented t-test comparison in Table 1.

Table 1. T-test Comparison of the Experimental and Control Groups’ Posttest Academic
Achievement Average Scores
Group N 𝑿 S Sd T P
Experiment 52 12.36 4.11 105 2.65 .00*
Control 55 10.25 4.10
* p<0.05

When Table 1 is analyzed, academic achievement average score of students in the experimental
group is 12.36; academic achievement average score of the students in the control group is 10.25.
Significant differences between the academic achievement of students in the two different groups were
formed (t(105) = 2.65, p<0.05). Accordingly, it can be said two different learning process is caused to
significant differences in post-test achievement scores of students. In other words, it can be said that
blended learning provides a higher level of academic achievement according to the face-to-face
learning. On the other hand, It was examined the effect size of the eta-squared (η2), and Cohen’s d
because it was to decide at blended learning what level of impact on academic success. Effect size was
calculated as the value of η2 = .06 and Cohen d = .51. Accordingly, 6% of the variance in academic
achievement scores have emerged depending on the blended learning. Also, the difference between the
academic achievement' average scores of the experimental and control groups is up to standard
deviation of .51. The calculated values in both effect size (η2 = .06, d = .51) shows to be that blended
learning has "medium" size effect on academic achievement.
Findings Related to the Second Sub-Objective
- Is there a significant difference between pretest and posttest student engagement scores of students in
the experimental group and the control group of students?
The experimental and control group students' pre-test scores on the subscales of engagement
are presented t-test comparison in Table 2.

Table 2. T-Test Comparison of The Experimental and Control Groups’ Pretest Student Engagement
Average Scores
Subscales of
Engagement Group N 𝑿 Ss Sd T P
Experiment 52 3.49 .60 105 -.99 .32
AYÖ
Control 55 3.61 .71
Experiment 52 3.22 .55 105 -.53 .59
ÖZS
Control 55 3.28 .61
Experiment 52 3.41 .66 105 -1.24 .21
GDÖÖE
Control 55 3.59 .82
Experiment 52 3.41 .55 10 -1.09 .27
General Total
Control 55 3.54 .66

209
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

According to Table 2, average score of students engagement in the experimental group was
found 3.41. Also, average score of students engagement in the control group was found 3.54. The
average score of subscales of students engagement in the experimental group was found, active and
collaborative learning (ACL) 3.49, student's forced level (SFL) 3.22, and the feedback level and students-
teachers interaction (FLSTI) 3.41. The average score of subscales of students engagement in the control
group was found, ACL 3.61, SFL 3.28, and FLSTI 3.59. Based on these results, there was no significant
difference found when compared student engagement scores of between both groups in pretest (t(105)
= -1.09, p>.05). At the same time, subscales of student engagement scores of between both groups, there
was found no significant difference in the pretest (tACL(105) = -.99, tSFL(105) = -.53, tFLSTI(105) = -1.24; p>.05).
In other words, it can be said that the students in the experimental and control groups were similar
student engagement prior to study.
Located in the experimental and control group students' post-test scores on the subscales of
engagement are presented t-test comparison in Table 3.

Table 3. T-Test Comparison of The Experimental and Control Groups’ Posttest Student Engagement
Average Scores
Katılım Boyutlar Grup N 𝑿 ss Sd T P
Deney 52 3.82 .59 105 1.40 .16
AYÖ
Kontrol 55 3.66 .59
Deney 52 3.51 .66 105 1.15 .25
ÖZS
Kontrol 55 3.36 .70
Deney 52 3.59 .79 105 .56 .57
GDÖÖE
Kontrol 55 3.50 .86
Deney 52 3.69 .60 105 1.20 .23
Genel Ort.
Kontrol 55 3.55 .59

When examining Table 3, average score of students engagement in the experimental group was
found 3.69 after the research. Also, average score of students engagement in the control group was
found 3.55. The average score of subscales of students engagement in the experimental group was found
ACL 3.82, SFL 3.51, and FLSTI 3.59 in the post-test. At the same time, the average score of subscales of
students engagement in the control group was found, ACL 3.66, SFL 3.36, and FLSTI 3.50. Accordingly,
there was found no significant difference when compared student engagement scores of between both
groups after the study (t(105) = 1.20, p>.05). In addition, subscales of student engagement scores of
between both groups, there was found no significant difference in the post-test (tACL(105) = 1.40, tSFL(105)
= 1.15, tFLSTI(105) = .56; p>.05). In other words, it can be said that the control and experimental groups is
similar on student engagement and subscale of student engagement after research.

210
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

- Is there a significant difference between the developments of experimental and control group student
engagement?
Development scores of students located in the control and experimental groups were calculated
as the difference between posttest scores and pretest scores. Pre-test, post-test and development average
scores of students located in the control and experimental groups were presented in Figure 1 and Figure
2.

4
Avarage Scores

3
2
1
0
-1
ACL SFL FLSTI Engagement
Posttest 3,66 3,36 3,5 3,55
Pretest 3,61 3,28 3,59 3,54
Development 0,05 0,08 -0,09 0,01

Figure 1. Posttest, Pretest and Development Avarage Scores of Students Engagement Sub Dimensions
in Control Group Students
Avarage Scores

5
4
3
2
1
0
ACL SFL FLSTI Engagement
Posttest 3,82 3,51 3,59 3,69
Pretest 3,49 3,22 3,41 3,41
Development 0,33 0,29 0,18 0,28

Figure 2. Posttest, Pretest and Development Avarage Scores of Students Engagement Sub Dimensions
in Experimental Group Students

The students in the experimental and control group comparison regarding the student
engagement average development scores were presented in Table 4.
Table 4. T-Test Comparison of the Experimental and Control Groups' Student Engagement Sub
Dimensions Development Scores
Katılım Boyutlar Grup N 𝑿 ss Sd T P
Deney 52 .33 .59 105 2.54 .01*
AYÖ
Kontrol 55 .05 .58
Deney 52 .29 .75 105 1.68 .09
ÖZS
Kontrol 55 .08 .54
Deney 52 .18 .82 105 1.70 .09
GDÖÖE
Kontrol 55 -.09 .82
Deney 52 .28 .59 105 2.42 .01*
Genel Katılım
Kontrol 55 .01 .54

211
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

When analyzed the results in Table 4, average development score of student engagement in the
experimental group was found .28; the control group was .01. In a nutshell, development of students
engagement the experimental group and the control group is composed a significant difference between
both groups (t(105) = 2.42, p< .05). Accordingly, the development of student engagement level in
blended learning can be said to affect more positive than face to face learning. In other words, It can be
said that blended learning on the development of student engagement has been more effective than face
to face learning. On the other hand, It was examined the effect size of the eta-squared (η2), and Cohen's
d because it was to decide at what level of blended learning impact on development of engagement.
Cohen's effect size values were calculated as η2=.05 and Cohen d= .47. Accordingly, 7% of the variance
in academic achievement scores have emerged depending on the blended learning. Accordingly, it can
said that the distance between the averages the standard deviation is .47, and the variance of their
student engagement development scores have emerged due to the 5% of blended learning. In this case,
it seems that blended learning has a “medium” level effect size (d= .47, η2= .05) on development levels
of student engagement.
The development score of subscales of students engagement in the experimental group was
found, active and collaborative learning (ACL) .33, student's forced level (SFL) .29, and the feedback
level and students-teachers interaction (FLSTI) .18. Also, development score of subscales of students
engagement in the control group was found, ACL .05, SFL .08, and FLSTI -.09. Accordingly, The
development score of subscales of students engagement was found significant difference between both
groups only active and collaborative learning subscale (t(105) = 2.54, p< .05). In other words, It can be
said that blended learning on the development of active and collaborative learning has been more
effective than face to face learning. On the other hand, It was examined the effect size of the eta-squared
(η2), and Cohen d because it was to decide at what level of blended learning impact on development of
collaborative learning subscale. Effect size was calculated as the value of η2 = .06 and Cohen d = .49.
According to, it can be said that the difference of active and collaborative learning average scores of
between the experimental and control groups were up to standard deviation of .49. Accordingly, it can
be said that 6% of the variance in ACL scores have emerged depending on the blended learning. Both
effect size calculated was shown that blended learning was had on a "medium" size effect on the levels
of development of ACL.

212
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

Discussion, Conclusion and Suggestions

According to the research results, experimental group students' test scores were seen as more
significant and higher than the score of the control group students' in achievement post-test which
applied after the experimental procedure. According to this results, blended learning has provided a
higher level of student achievement more effective than face-to-face learning. In addition, blended
learning has a medium level effect size on students' levels of academic achievement (η 2= .06, d= .51).
This situation show that blended learning has a significant impact on academic achievement. Similarly,
studies examining the effects of the use of blended learning, in general, the use of blended learning
environment in course were found to be positive effects in terms of academic achievement (Christoph,
1999; Boyle at. al. 2003; Taradi, Taradi, Radic & Pokrajac, 2005; Eşgi, 2006; Usta, 2007; Wang, Fonk &
Choy, 2007; Mahiroğlu & Usta, 2008; Uluyol & Şirin, 2009; Tankut, 2008; Ekici & Karaman, 2011;
Acelajado, 2011). Also, there were conflicting studies on this outcome in the literature (Ünsal, 2007). One
of these studies, Acelajado (2011), examined the effects of blended learning on student achievement in
mathematics teaching. Research results on all matters dealt with a blended learning approach is more
effective than traditional face-to-face learning approach was concluded.
Students engagement and subscales of student engagement did not occur significant differences
between the experimental group and control group in before and after the experiment. This result
contradicts the way, Holley & Dobson (2008), Holley & Oliver (2010), Chen, Lambert & Guidry (2010)
and Sarıtepeci & Yıldız (2014) have reached the conclusion that blended learning have positive impact
on students' attendance from various angles in their studies performed. One of the aspects that differ
from this study of Holley & Dobson (2008), and Chen, Lambert & Guidry (2010)' studies can be shown
keeping the sample size large. However, It can be viewed as an important difference that the studies'
participants (Holley & Dobson, 2008; Chen, Lambert & Guidry, 2010; Sarıtepeci & Yıldız, 2014) is the
forming from the high school students or university students. Another reason for this differences
between the results of this study with the results of the mentioned studies can be explained by the
limitations of this study. In this study, Course instructors were needed a second teacher (Information
Technologies Teacher) for in the conduct of activities in the on-line part of blended learning. One of the
main reasons for this situation can be shown as that Inadequate Information Technology Literacy [ITL]
levels of Social Studies teachers. Yıldız, Sarıtepeci and Seferoğlu (2013) emphasized the necessity to
develop teachers' ITL level in their study that examined granted under Fatih project in-service training
activities. The stated limitations, it can be said that especially affect the implementation process of the
study dramatically. The IT teacher was present in only one of the four schools involved in the study. In
this case, teachers have failed toreach IT teacher's help most of the time when they need it.
There were found significant differences between the experimental and control groups in
student engagement average improvement scores. Development of student engagement in the
experimental group was realized at a higher level of from the control group. In addition, the blended
learning has a medium level effect size (d= .47, η 2= .05) on the development of student engagement in
the course. According to this, it can be said that blended learning is a significant impact on the
development of student engagement level. In summary, blended learning has been affected positively
development of student engagement in the course. Sarıtepeci and Yıldız (2014) were stated that blended
learning has a large effect size on the student engagement in their study which examined blended
learning environments effect on students engagement in the course and motivations towards the course.

213
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

Recommendations for implementation and research are presented below:

Not enough use of properly structured online application to the blended learning environments
in the middle school level leads to students being not familiar to such practices. In this research, it was
given four hours of training for online course material prior to application. However, longer training
time is recommended. Longer training process will help to students about recognize better the online
course materials and live less of a problem in the application process.
Another important limitation of this study is not providing timely support for teachers when
teachers need support during the implementation phase of the research. In order to solve this problem,
it can be presented to use of online support elements in the studies that will be carried out. In addition,
a total of six hours of training related to the online portion of the course aimed at course teachers were
given prior to the application of this study. This period can be increased in order to conduct the process
on their own, and it will be useful to include more applications in this training process.

214
Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

References
Acelajado J. M. (2011). Blended learning: a strategy for improving the mathematics achievement of
students in a bridging program. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 5(3).
Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2006). A study on students’ views on blended learning environment.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE 7(3).
Altınışık, S. (2001). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde çoklu ortamın öğrencilerin akademik başarıları ve derse karşı
tutumları üzerindeki etkisi. Unpublished MA thesis, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul.
Arıkan, R. (2011). Araştırma yöntem ve teknikleri. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
Arslan, O. (2006). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde bilgisayar destekli öğretim. Unpublished MA thesis, Selçuk
University, Konya.
Aycock, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Lessons learned from the hybrid course project. Teaching
with Technology Today, 8(6). Retrieved 20 February 2012,
http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham2.htm.
Bolliger, D., & Martindale, T. (2001). Student satisfaction in an online master's degree program in ınstructional
technology. Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, Atalanta. Retrieved 12 July 2014,
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470070.pdf.
Bersin, J. (2004); The blended learning book: Best practices, Proven Methodologies, and Lessons Learned.
John Wiley ve Sons.
Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Rickard, P. (2003). Using blended learning to ımprove
student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media. 28(2-3), 165-178.
Chen, D. P., Lambert, D. A., & Guidry, R. K. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based
learning technology on college student engagement. Computers ve Education. 54(4), 1222-1232.
Çakır, H. (2008). İnternet temelli öğretim tasarımı ve teknolojide yeni yönelimler, İnternet Temelli
Öğrenme. Editör Yalın, H. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Dennis, A., Bichelmeyer, B., Henry, D., Cakir, H., Korkmaz, A., Watson, C., & Bunnage, J. (2006). The
Cisco networking academy: A model for the study of student success in a blended learning
environment. The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. Pfeiffer San
Francisco, 120-35.
Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative
research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of educational research, 68(3),
322-349.
Gülümbay, A. A. (2005). Yükseköğretimde web’e dayalı ve yüz yüze ders alan öğrencilerin öğrenme
stratejilerinin, bilgisayar kaygılarının ve başarı durumlarının karşılaştırılması. Eskişehir: Anadolu
Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Güven, İ. (2005). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin meslekî gelişim ve yeterlikleri. Bilim ve Aklın
Aydınlığında Eğitim Dergisi. Retrieved 17 September 2011,
http://yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/sayi60/guven.htm.
Holley, D., & Dobson, C. (2008). Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning environment:
The use of contemporary learning spaces. Learning, Media and technology, 33(2), 139-150.
Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits of risk. Computers
ve Education, 54(3), 693-700.
Jordan, M. H., & Rovai, P. A. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis
with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 5(2).

215
 Education and Science 2015, Vol 40, No 177, 203-216 M. Sarıtepeci & H. Çakır

Karadeniz, Ş., & Uluyol, Ç. (2009). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarında proje temelli öğrenmeye
ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 29(1), 19-36. Retrieved 20 May 2011,
http://ietc2008.home.anadolu.edu.tr/ietc2008/42.doc.
Karakuş, F. (2006). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde yapıcı öğrenme ve otantik değerlendirme yaklaşımlarının
öğrencilerin akademik başarı, kalıcılık ve sosyal bilgiler dersine yönelik tutumlarına etkisi. Unpublished
PhD thesis, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana.
MEB (2005). Sınıflar öğretim programı ve kılavuzu. İlköğretim Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi 6-7. Ankara: Talim
Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
MEB (2012). Proje Hakkında. Retrieved 12 Jun 2012, http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/tr/index.php.
National Institute of Corrections. (2009). Distance learning reference guide version 1.0: Corrections
Learning Environment (CLE) Program. 2009. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.
Retrieved 17 March 2012, http://nicic.gov/Library/024098.
Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. American
Journal of Distance Education, 16(2).
Newman, F. (1992) Student engagement and achievement in american secondary schools. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning systems: definitions and directions.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-234.
Sarıtepeci, M. (2012). İlköğretim 7. Sınıf ilköğretim sosyal bilgiler dersinde harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarının
öğrencilerin derse katılımına, başarısına, tutumuna ve motivasyonuna etkisi. Unpublished MA thesis,
Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Sarıtepeci, M., & Yıldız, H. (2014). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarının öğrencilerin derse katılım ve
derse karşı motivasyonları üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD),
35(1), 115-129.
Senemoğlu, N. (2009). Gelişim öğrenme ve öğretim kuramdan uygulamaya. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings.
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2, 605-620.
Sönmez, V. (1997). Sosyal bilgiler öğretimi ve öğretmen kılavuzu. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Taradi, S. K., Taradi, M., Radic, K., & Pokrajac, N. (2005). Blending problem-based learning with web
technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology. Advances in
Physiology Education, 29, 35-39.
Usta, E. (2007). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ve çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarının akademik başarı ve doyuma Etkisi.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Utts, J., Sommer, B., Acredolo, C., Maher, M., & Matthews, H. (2003). A study comparing traditional
and hybrid internet-based instruction in ıntroductory statistics classes. Journal of Statistics
Education. 11(3). Retrieved 12 December 2011,
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v11n3/utts.html.
Ünsal, H. (2007). Harmanlanmış öğrenme etkinliğinin çoklu düzeyde değerlendirilmesi. Unpublished PhD
thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Wang L. F., Fong J., & Choy, M. (2007) Blended learning for programming courses: A case study of
outcome based teaching and learning. (eds. L. F. Wang ve J. Fong). Blended Learning: Workshop on
Blended Learning Conference. Edinburgh: 2007.
Yıldız, H., Sarıtepeci, M., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2013). FATİH projesi kapsamında düzenlenen hizmet-içi
eğitim etkinliklerinin öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimine katkılarının ISTE öğretmen standartları
açısından incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Hacettepe University Journal of
Education], Özel sayı(1), 375-392.

216

View publication stats