Feasibility of Blended Learning Adoption in a Hong Kong Tertiary English Environment: a Study of Students’ Learning Gain and Experiences

Introduction

Technology advancement in teaching and learning and the implementation of blended learning have attracted considerable attention and interest in the field of education. With the widespread availability of information technology and the internet, language teaching in traditional classrooms, particularly the teaching of English as a second language (ESL), has changed considerably in recent decades [1,2]. Multimedia platforms and digital resources for English language education have given teachers and learners more opportunities for communication and interaction. This not only promotes self-regulated learning but also enhances the effectiveness of teaching and learning [2].

Rise of new teaching methods with technological innovation

Technology innovations are used in education for new educational environments and teaching methods. In second language acquisition, self-regulated study has been integrated into traditional face-to-face (F2F) teaching [3]. This blended teaching and learning model is dominant in both local and universal contexts [4]. What ESL teachers tend to do in current English classrooms is to integrate or “blend” the teaching and learning process with online elements to offer new ways of producing and receiving language education [5,6]. Blended learning (BL), as a rapidly developing teaching approach, contains elements that may not be found in traditional F2F instruction. Practised in many different types of institutions at different educational levels, it is considered one of the most promising trends and pedagogical methodologies that are transforming the way we learn [4,7]. The BL approach in language teaching, particularly ESL, which integrates technologybased instruction into traditional F2F classrooms, has attracted considerable interest from language researchers and teachers worldwide. Despite the prevalence of BL, its adoption in ESL is still in its early phase and research on its effectiveness is inconclusive. Some professional educators believe that by integrating the strengths of both online learning and F2F lectures, BL offers options for a more effective and convenient learning process that could foster higher levels of learning and provide constructive learning experiences [8-10]. However, BL had no significant impact on students’ academic achievements and satisfaction in several empirical studies; thus, some researchers have expressed reservations about its implementation and success [11,12].

Changes in learners’ needs

Apart from the change in teaching methods, learning needs also vary due to societal changes. Learning – the acquisition of new knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. – should not be neglected with pedagogy focusing on students [13,14]. Traditional classroom teaching can no longer accommodate individual and societal requirements. Technology has the potential to respond to the changing expectations of the current generation of students and improve students’ learning and engagement [15]. BL is designed to accommodate learners’ diversified needs in the 21st century, match their learning style preferences and respond to unexpected changes and challenges like the outbreak of COVID-19. BL is referred to as the “new normal” in the delivery of education [9,16]. Tosun [11] states that learners’ repertoire of learning strategies can be expanded with the help of teachers who consider their students’ differences and take them into account in classroom instruction. Hence, developing more flexible language learning approaches would be valuable. Owston et al. [15] and Sorden and Munene (2013) highlight how institutions worldwide encourage collaborative learning and make learning more accessible. This can be achieved by using technology to link classroom activities to self-directed study involving limited classroom teaching input.

Trends in higher education

BL is spreading widely in higher education [17,18]. As reported by Shebansky [19], the New Media Consortium Horizon Report “2014 Higher Education” depicts the combination of online, blended, and collaborative learning as a trend driving changes in higher education. Many higher education professionals are encouraged or required to use BL as an instructional methodology and important teaching and learning model. Numerous studies reports that it is highly applicable to the tertiary level; it will soon be a mainstream concept in higher education [12,20,21]. Many studies in the literature report on the adoption of the BL approach in higher education and its potential to improve learning outcomes and student achievement [22]. Though BL has become prevalent in higher education, it is still a relatively new, developing area.

Higher education in Hong Kong

Hong Kong’s higher education sector has been restructured substantially since 2000, changing it from an elite system to one offering simple market mass higher education [23]. Those who are not admitted to the limited number of government-funded undergraduate places in Hong Kong universities often take subdegree programmes such as diplomas, higher diplomas, or associate degrees offered by continuing education providers [24]. According to the statistics provided by the Committee on Self-financing Postsecondary Education, Education Bureau of the HKSAR Government [25], the number of full-time sub-degree students was around 57,700 in 2020/21. Given the number of sub-degree students in the sector, it is necessary to understand their learning needs, attitudes, and behaviour to select a quality teaching and learning approach. Identifying the factors that affect students’ choices of institutions or study programmes may also be important for self-financing institutions that must stay ahead in the competitive environment to maintain student enrolment [23].

Objectives of the study

Pedagogy is one of the main rationales for the introduction of BL, but more consideration should be given to assessing achievement in students taught using this modality [9]. Most research on BL at the university level has targeted undergraduate students. Few BL studies have looked at community colleges and most were conducted in the United States or a handful of Asian countries. There has been only limited research on Chinese or Hong Kong ESL learners. This sector is worth studying since students from continuing education institutes or community colleges may show more individual differences in their self-regulatory skills than undergraduate students or have different perceptions on BL due to their diverse backgrounds, foundation of knowledge and learning styles. It is necessary to understand the characteristics of subdegree students to provide appropriate support to enhance their learning experience. Assessing the effectiveness of BL in the subdegree sector is also important for educators and decision-makers when considering BL adoption [10]. This study investigates student perspectives and learning outcomes in an English course conducted at a continuing education institute in Hong Kong. Its purpose is to find out how BL compares with traditional F2F learning in such students and whether it has any effect on their performance and perceptions.

Literature Review

The introduction of BL was an influential reform to instruction, combining the advantages of both conventional F2F and online learning across educational levels and subject areas. Previous studies have examined BL from various perspectives, covering its design, advantages and disadvantages, effectiveness over online or F2F instruction, as well as its influences and future developments. As observed by Mendieta Aguilar [26], BL is increasingly used in higher education worldwide due to globalization, expansion of higher education and social, economic, and pedagogical challenges.

Definition and design of BL

The terms used to denote BL – for example, “mixed-mode instruction” – are multiple and changeable. Definitions for BL are manifold as well. A broad and general consensus of the definition of BL is the thoughtful fusion of teaching modes or teaching methods and materials delivered both F2F and online to complement each other to maximize teaching effectiveness for the intended educational purposes [3,26,27]. BL emphasizes a student-centered, learner-oriented concept instead of a teacher-led lecture style of classroom teaching [28].

When the term was first introduced around 2000, Graham [1] described the emergence of BL as the “convergence between traditional face-to-face learning environments and computermediated learning environments” (p.255). According to Graham [29], blending has three aspects: blending online and F2F instruction, blending instructional methods and blending instructional modalities. Hubackova et al. [30] defined BL as a combination of synchronous and asynchronous teaching in which synchronous teaching proceeds in real time, allowing all learners to receive information and react mutually, and asynchronous teaching instructs different students at different times. As Mudra [5] reiterates, the internet and online media play an important role in BL conducted in English language classrooms, but F2F learning, which ensures real-time communication, is essential to BL.

With the introduction of this new approach, the focus of some ESL educators has shifted away from limited and repetitive teaching methods to a more dynamic and productive learning procedure that emphasizes collaboration in the language acquisition process [31]. With the pedagogical value of BL increasingly recognised, definition of BL has expanded to comprise a richer collection of learning modes, methods, styles, and environments [1]. Besides the combination of F2F and online modes, a few comparatively more micro or circumscribed combinations have been suggested [4] because many factors in a learning system can be mixed or blended. The “blend” can combine a synchronous online format with an asynchronous, self-paced online format; tailormade content with off-the-shelf content and self-paced with collaborative learning.

The reviews that define BL demonstrate that it mixes the key elements of F2F teaching and the features of online learning to improve teaching and learning. The choice of the lead mode and the distribution of modes in BL design should be made after thoughtful consideration and assessment of the learning objectives, the learning subjects – teachers and students – and the resources available [32]. In this study, BL is considered as an education model that supplements classroom real-time, F2F teaching with asynchronous online learning supported by internet technology.

Involvement of teachers, students, and technology

Teachers, students, technology, pedagogy, and the classroom, should be taken into account when designing BL because they all play important roles in the BL environment [2,33]. As the main designers, developers, and implementers of BL courses, teachers should act as facilitators to foster a positive learning experience among students. Teachers also act as aides, partners or even observers in managing learners’ work in the online environment [32,34]. A virtual community should exist in a BL environment, so teachers bear the responsibility for supporting online task completion and answering enquiries from students who encounter difficulties or lack clarity in their online learning process [35,36]. This implies that to be aware of the interrelationship among the important elements in BL, teachers should first receive professional training in providing support of online task completion [36].

BL allows learners to personalize their learning at their own pace. Therefore, student engagement is a crucial factor in determining learning experiences and outcomes [8]. Students may need to shift roles quickly, transitioning from recipients to partners and peer teachers to facilitators, so they must be flexible and autonomous language learners who can handle different degrees of responsibility for the learning process [32,37]. In BL, students and teachers collaborate with technology and multimedia to support the language learning process by creating a virtual community [28].

Benefits of BL

Osguthorpe and Graham [38] identified six reasons why educational systems choose BL, including “pedagogical richness, access to knowledge, social interaction, personal agency, costeffectiveness, and ease of revision”. These factors also explain the significant growth of BL courses in many higher education institutions. BL is generally perceived as combining the strengths of F2F lectures and online learning. It also has the potential to make the learning process more efficient, effective, and convenient despite limitations in resources and teaching techniques [27,39]. According to Zhang and Zhu [10], learning engagement and interactivity in classrooms are both enhanced in BL environments compared with the F2F-only classrooms.

Learning from multiple resources

Since BL is a combination of online and F2F learning, students can benefit from the resources of both learning modes. Online learning resources, such as the promotion of active learning and sharing of ideas through online discussions, motivate students to learn and engage in critical thinking. BL encourages students to learn from familiar internet resources such as YouTube, play interesting communicative games and engage in activities that reduce stress and anxiety for second language acquisition. Students generally enjoy learning through online videos; they can choose among a selection of videos, control when and how they watch the videos, access them easily and explore subjects in more depth [3,31]. This not only enhances their language skills, particularly listening and speaking, but also helps learners gain the cross-cultural awareness that is essential in language learning. The inclusion of F2F sessions also offers students opportunities to maintain classroom contact with instructors and classmates and communicate directly with the institute [8,9]. The time in class can be spent on problem-solving activities to increase students’ understanding of concepts [12]. In F2F compared with online sessions, discussions are more cohesive and further elaborated and critical reflections are developed; online and F2F learning can maximize learning by generating different learning effects and outcomes [15].

Flexibility for students, teachers, and institutes

BL as a flexible instructional environment provides freedom and opportunities for students to interact regardless of time and location, as well as wide and convenient access to learning resources, the ability to keep track of their work and considerable autonomy in regulating their study [15]. BL helps students to become more involved and autonomous learners who are expected to take responsibility for controlling their learning pace and are less dependent on teachers [19]. The introduction of BL may lower the costs to students of pursuing higher education because of its online elements and allow them to receive learner-centered education in a more comfortable and less threatening environment [2,17].

Taking advantage of ready-to-use rich content, teachers using a BL approach can create an accommodating instructional environment that provides attractive and purposeful learning opportunities for students [9,34]. Teachers also benefit from flexibility in lesson planning and preparation, material modification and timing [7]. Additionally, this flexibility benefits institutes and schools by reducing costs relating to teaching schedules and the provision of facilities and resources [39]. The challenges of supporting courses with students of varying ability levels can be addressed by the flexible planning and arrangements for characterised BL [15].

Effectiveness of BL

Some professional educators believe that BL offers more choices and is more effective compared with traditional F2F or online learning in developing the language skills of language learners if it is applied effectively [22,40]. The effectiveness of BL, especially in comparison with conventional courses, can be measured by the extent to which learning outcomes are attained and the degree to which students are satisfied [41]. Satisfaction can be measured by the frequency of student participation, learning engagement, the relationship between participation and success, and students’ perceptions of the course (that is, whether it is valued and considered an advantageous experience) [29]. BL design features such as the quality of the online tools, F2F support, the interactive learning experience, social presence, and cognitive presence can predict students’ performance and satisfaction [9,42]. Kwak et al. [43] speculated that BL’s impact on student performance could depend on whether the effect of BL was cumulative or not. This could help to explain the different findings of studies with different durations of BL [10]. Individual learning differences such as student characteristics, backgrounds, attitudes, and self-regulation should also be taken into account in attempts to make learneroriented BL instruction more effective [29,44]. Al Fadda [31] found that community college students show greater individual variation in performance than university students because levels of selfregulatory skills are more diverse in the former.

Challenges of BL

Although the flexibility of BL to address varying design needs can be an advantage, it can also cause difficulties in implementation. One of the most challenging aspects is the use of new learning strategies in BL because teachers and students in most Asian countries are accustomed to a lecture-based classroom culture [40]. Technological hindrances affecting students, teachers, and administrators, such as poor availability of software programmes, technical issues, lack of internet connections and slow server speeds, impede the implementation of BL [45].

Challenges faced by teachers

Teachers report that they are unsure how to design BL to create positive learning experiences that lead to improved language skills. Learners’ attitudes, strategies, preferences, perceptual skills, and prior knowledge are often ignored in BL design. The increased workload is another concern as BL requires teachers to deal with two different teaching components. Developing, moderating, or redesigning a course can be time-consuming [35,46]. Teachers must also consider the abilities and prior knowledge of the learners and promote learning interactions. This ensures that activities are welldesigned and practical so that students enjoy an authentic learning experience and can apply their skills in real life [31]. Teaching staff with weak pedagogical and digital literacy cannot use innovative methodological approaches to produce effective and interactive digital educational content, resulting in low-quality BL course design. Some teachers feel unprepared and insecure due to a lack of expertise with technology. Others are resistant: they oppose BL because they fear that it will replace F2F instruction and are hesitant to adopt new teaching strategies [3,47,48].

Challenges faced by students

Students consider motivation and discipline their biggest obstacles in BL because the approach requires a high level of autonomy and self-regulation in learning. Incentives, a high level of responsiveness, good time-management skills, and the ability to work independently are vital to success in the BL environment [9]. Unfortunately, some students do not take online instruction seriously [40]. Students enrolled in BL courses may have unrealistic expectations, assuming that there is less work to be done in courses with fewer classes [28]. Lack of understanding and experience of BL and unpreparedness for academic work may lead to student frustration, unresponsiveness, and resentment of the time demands [19,46]. Additionally, the introduction of online learning may lead students to feel isolated and uncommitted to keeping up with their studies. Students have less social interaction in BL than in F2F lectures and fewer opportunities to ask questions, respond or listen to the replies of others [43]. Immediate feedback can be lacking if the online components do not support real-time comments for students [21,35]. The need for internet connectivity, technical equipment and the knowledge of sophisticated technology also pose an impediment for students taking blended courses, especially those from less developed areas or those whose families have limited resources [49]. Shih [2] reported that not only teachers but also students find BL laborious, especially when they must submit work such as video recordings that require considerable time to upload.

Challenges faced by institutions

The traditional university culture is considered a major obstacle to the adoption of BL. Factors influencing the school culture and teachers’ beliefs can be complicated and associated with cultural contexts. Some Asian societies, like those in China and Hong Kong, are rooted in traditional Confucian culture [50]. This can affect the acceptance of BL by the educational stakeholders [51]. In some studies, teachers and students favoured traditional modes of education and solely F2F lectures [50]. Institutions and course designers must develop an appropriate balance between F2F and online modes, avoiding out-of-balance and divergent blends [26]. Furthermore, institutions must be willing to devote financial resources to teacher training and the provision of suitable infrastructure, adequate advanced electronic devices, stable internet access on campus, updated learning resources and technical supports in the workplace [27,47]. Large class sizes, lack of policies, insufficient faculty support, inadequate technological resources, and deficient staff capacity to engage with BL can all impede its integration [52,53]. Because unwillingness and unreadiness among teachers and students can lead BL to fail, institutions must provide them with organizational and managerial support to help them overcome the psychological barriers and practical issues that they encounter [40,47].

Student performance and perceptions

Although some studies, such as those of Šafranj [37] and Zhang and Zhu [21], have reported that BL improves student outcomes and experience more than traditional or online learning, others have found no significant differences or even negative results. Hence, it is often claimed that BL has not reached its optimal level of effectiveness, particularly in English language teaching [8].

Performance

Academic results are regarded as a significant indicator of the success of BL. Studies by Inal and Korkmaz [14] and Zhang and Zhu [21] found that students in a BL group displayed better academic achievement in their English courses than students studying F2F only. Al Fadda [31] reported a positive correlation between self-efficacy and course results. Several findings showed that self-motivation, workload management and the ability to work independently are important in BL learning. Therefore, the failure to complete or engage in online activities in the BL environment could lead to lower proficiency and worse performance [9]. Tosun [11] reported no significant differences in student achievement on vocabulary tests between BL and traditional learning.

Perception

Owston et al. [15] and Webb and Doman [12] found that proficient learners found BL courses more engaging, less expensive, and more convenient than traditional courses. The students appreciated the opportunity to control their study pace and choice of materials. Gyamfi and Gyaase [54] and Yu and Du [4] similarly affirmed that student engagement and satisfaction were higher in BL courses. BL sustained student interest, thus boosting cognitive engagement. Students find that the learning activities on smartphones and tablets used in the BL approach are more flexible and engaging than conventional in-class activities. Possessing the required technical equipment and motivation were identified as key factors in the success of BL [22]. When students perceive benefits to their learning, their motivation to perform increases. Several studies reported that students need teachers to review or summarize the main points of lessons in the classroom as they are not ready for full online English courses. In other words, BL with both online and F2F sessions would be their preference.

Students have high expectations for the design of activities, such as their practicality and applicability in life outside the classroom. Designing such activities can be challenging for educators in BL design. Students also perceive motivation, which requires a high level of self-discipline, as their greatest challenge in a BL environment [8]. Tosun [11] found that students were dissatisfied with the blend of digital tools and in-class activities even though they appreciated learning and practising vocabulary in the BL mode. BL – primarily its online component – is relatively difficult for weak students as they become frustrated when online explanations are incomplete or inaccurate [3]. Mudra [5] and Simbolon [36] reported that non-interactive activities, instructor unavailability, unclear instructions, limited familiarity with the learning tools, and unorganized teaching materials affected how students viewed BL. Some students even thought that BL was a waste of time because they had to devote extra time to consulting online resources and were frustrated that unethical behaviour and cheating were hard to prevent.

BL in the Hong Kong context

Scholars in China are concerned that BL is not well integrated into language courses and have investigated its influence on student learning outcomes [41]. Scholars have also studied whether students in the Hong Kong context rely more on rote learning than Western learners [55]. It can be difficult to engage students with BL because Confucian culture values passiveness [50]. Moving from a purely F2F to BL approach necessitates adjustments of attitudes across the whole institution [56]. BL adoption in Hong Kong tertiary education is both technology-driven and pedagogy-driven [57]. An increasing number of studies have investigated BL learning experiences among undergraduate students in Hong Kong in disciplines such as languages, engineering, accounting, and computer science, but research focusing on sub-degree students is still limited [58]. Studies of BL in the Hong Kong tertiary context have mainly assessed the design and implementation of BL, ways to develop quality BL courses and students’ perceptions of BL (including factors affecting their acceptance and experience of BL adoption) [6,58,59]. Ng et al. [2] highlighted that sub-degree students may not be able to manage their learning fully independently online; therefore, combining some online components with F2F classroom sessions can be a favorable combination for them. Hence, including some online components in classroom lessons could help students navigate the change from solely F2F to BL.

Theoretical Framework

A useful theoretical framework to evaluate change, including the change from F2F to BL, is described by Rogers [60-62]. It incorporates keys to acceptance and promotion of innovation behaviour and an explanation of the widely different adoption rates of BL in different contexts. These characteristics of innovation, listed below, could be used to identify the components that characterise the initiation of BL in this study.

Relative advantage: the degree to which an innovation adopter perceives the innovation as being better than the previous ways of performing the same task. Does the change (BL adoption) offer something better than traditional F2F teaching? The appreciation of teachers and learners for the relative advantage of BL has a direct impact on its implementation and performance.

Compatibility: the degree to which an innovation is considered as being consistent with the existing values, needs and past experiences of the adopters. Are the values, needs and expectations of BL compatible with those of the teachers and students who will be using it? This attribute is a significant predictor of participants’ attitudes and therefore positively related to decisions made.

Complexity: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as complicated to understand or put into practice. How complicated is BL adoption? It is more difficult to implement innovations that are complex or difficult to understand.

Trialability: the degree to which an innovation can be tried out on a limited basis before committing to its use. Can BL be tried and piloted?

Observability: the extent to which an innovation adopter sees the results of the innovation in the adoption context. Another dimension of this attribute is the result demonstrability and tangibility, namely, whether the innovation results are difficult to observe and describe to others. Are the results of the innovation (BL adoption) visible to others? [60-64].

The reasons for the initiation of BL in this study include the boom in technology use in education worldwide, the unpredictable and sudden outbreak of COVID-19, demographic changes that have increased the number of sub-degree students, advocacy from the Dean and teachers at the institute, and the change in students’ learning style. This study investigates the process of implementing BL for a group of sub-degree students and suggests ways to improve and continue BL.

Since the 1970s, systematic and extensive research has investigated student learning quality in higher education [21]. This study utilizes the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle as a basis to explore and ensure the quality of BL design and implementation. The PDCA cycle, a traditional tool for quality management, was promoted by W.E. Deming in the 1950s and thus is also known as the Deming Cycle or Deming Wheel. This iterative four-step model has been used extensively for quality control, ongoing review, and continuous improvement in manufacturing and later in education research [65-67]. Its essence is that actions implemented at one stage of the model can generate benefits and alleviate threats at a subsequent stage [68]. The PDCA steps are

Plan: define the concepts, context, scope, and objectives, identify problems, and develop the methodology.

Do: implement the plan as a pilot and solve problems.

Check: monitor, measure the results, evaluate, and review.

Act: implement the plan across the organisation by introducing it, incorporating it and maintaining and continually improving it in accordance with the culture of the organisation [66,67].

“Language instruction needs teachers to try, to create, to implement, to revise and to try again. Purposeful design lays every step of the instruction” [69]. At the first PDCA stage, “plan”, the BL approach, and instruments should be carefully designed and prepared to meet the aims of the adoption. In the second stage, “do”, learning activities and materials should be introduced to teachers and students to pilot the BL adoption. In the third stage, “check” the design and methodology by assessing and evaluating the results of the BL adoption. Finally, “act” by eliminating the weaknesses, introducing the BL intervention in the study, and subsequently incorporating BL into the curriculum of language courses in the institute.

Methods

Research aim and research questions

In light of the literature reviewed above, BL in this study is designed to provide more choices for teaching and learning and enhancing students’ learning experience in the continuing education institute of a university in Hong Kong. It constitutes a move from a conventional F2F learning approach to a BL approach, incorporating online components in response to the institute’s mission of “providing students top-quality and all-round total learning experience”.

This pilot study examined whether a certain BL design would be feasible in sub-degree English classrooms. It aimed at identifying the differences in student performance and student perceptions in two different approaches, F2F and BL. As stated by Sun [69], teachers should be able to use technology properly to design learning activities to meet curricular objectives. The current study was carried out by examining student engagement and performance in the four learning activities designed by the researcher, which were conducted using the two learning approaches. The study also examined student perceptions of BL. The findings will provide educators, instructors and course designers with information and guidelines for better course management, and especially help them to determine whether BL is suitable for students or institutions with similar contexts and how it could be better designed. To fulfil these objectives, this pilot study aimed at answering the following research questions:

a) Are there any differences in students’ completion of the learning activities (the number of activities completed, choice of activities, and timing of completion) conducted in two different modes: F2F and BL?

b) If yes, what are the differences?

a) Are there any differences in student performance in learning activities conducted in two different modes: F2F and BL?

b) If yes, what are the differences?

How do students perceive BL? Are any behavioural changes associated with BL adoption?

Research setting

The current research was conducted in the context of one selffinancing continuing education institute in Hong Kong. The school had three learning centres, seven divisions and about 2,380 students in 2021/22. The full-time sub-degree programmes provided by the school range from Diploma or Yi Jin Diploma at QF level 31 to Higher Diploma or Associate Degree at QF level 4 in various disciplines. The study involved one 55-hour compulsory English course, English for Communication II, at the Higher Diploma level (QF 4), which focuses on listening and speaking skills. The course textbook was Navigate B1+ Intermediate (Oxford University Press). The students underwent four continuous assessments (CA), as illustrated in the table below.

Table 1: Continuous assessment of English for Communication II.

The BL intervention in this study is the preparation for CA01, which is a group presentation in which the students review an English movie. The BL in this study involves learning activities in the English course. Since English for Communication II has a fixed syllabus, with limitations set by the school, creating learning activities for CA preparation was the most workable way to incorporate BL into the course. Another important reason for designing the BL element to accompany these activities was that they allowed students to learn from both the activities and their peers. The intervention was designed to investigate whether the BL approach is an effective and pleasant way of learning and investigate the factors that are directly associated with the effectiveness of learning in a blended course. An online learning platform provided by the university, Online Learning Environment (OLE), was used as a platform for sharing learning resources and participating in teacher-student interactions. Students were given four learning activities aimed at preparing them for CA01. Four classes were randomly divided into a control and an experimental group. The two classes in the control group did the activities in traditional F2F or paper form and the two classes in the experimental group self-studied the content of the activities online by watching pre-recorded videos and then finished the activities online using resources and platforms such as OLE, Google Form, YouTube, and various websites. To ensure parity, these two groups of students received the same input from the two teachers involved in this study, had the same contact hours in class, completed the same assessments, and were expected to achieve the same learning outcomes. The same teacher gave F2F instructions in the physical classrooms and supervised online learning for all of the students in a given class. After the study, students in the control group will also be given opportunities to learn in the BL modality. This is to ensure that the study will not deprive them of learning and none of the groups will be at a disadvantage.

Participants

The population under investigation consisted of non-English major sub-degree students who were studying in Year 1 of the fulltime programme Higher Diploma in Early Childhood Education at one self-financing continuing education institute in Hong Kong. Four intact classes with 124 students were selected using the following three criteria: all of the classes were weekly, fourhour, general English classes using the same curriculum; all of the classes were using the same textbook and teaching materials and the teachers of these classes had similar teaching experience and educational backgrounds. The students were informed by their instructors about the learning mode at the beginning of the course. Both instructors and students participated voluntarily in the study. In total, 55 students from two classes were randomly assigned to the control group that studied in traditional F2F mode, while 69 students from another two classes were assigned to the experimental group that studied in BL mode. The students in both groups were informed that they were being assigned to the control and experimental groups respectively, and no student registered disagreement with the sampling method or asked to swap groups. The students in both groups had completed a semester of study and had finished the same English course before this intervention. To examine whether there was a significant between-group difference in students’ prior knowledge and abilities, a pretest was conducted before the intervention to measure their English language proficiency. This pretest measured their speaking skills in a group presentation, including organisation skills, group effort, time management, delivery skills, fluency and coherence, grammatical accuracy, lexical resources, pronunciation and content.

Foot Notes

¹ “The QF in Hong Kong (HKQF) is a 7-level hierarchy. Each qualification is assigned a level in accordance with a set of Generic Level Descriptors (GLD) which specifies, in four domains, the outcome standards expected of the qualifications at each level” [70].

Instruments

The research instruments included four learning activities, one questionnaire (Appendix 1), and a semi-structured interview (Appendix 2).

Four learning activities

The four learning activities were all related to the topic and skills of CA01 Group Presentation to better prepare students for the assessment. The activities consisted of interactive peer review, video watching and reflection, a scored vocabulary test and reading exercises. They are explained in more detail below.

Learning Activity 1: Peer review for an oral presentation

The participants in the study did one group presentation as a pretest before the experiment. These presentations were videorecorded and uploaded to Google Drive. The participants were asked to watch the recorded group presentations of other students online and complete a peer evaluation form to comment on the performance of their peers and what they had learnt from others. The participants in the control group had to submit the peer evaluation form on paper, whereas those in the experimental group submitted a Google Form online. The table in the evaluation form contained the rubrics for their upcoming speaking assessment – CA01 Group Presentation. The researcher meticulously designed this evaluation form for teaching and learning so that when participants worked on the evaluation form, they would have a better understanding of how they would be assessed later and their teachers’ expectations.

Learning Activity 2: Reflective writing

Participants were given three suggested YouTube videos lasting seven to eight minutes each. They were asked to watch one of the videos and write a reflection in 200 words. The three videos were all related to group presentation skills. They presented similar content and similar levels of difficulty, and the speakers spoke with comparable accents. Three choices were given because students may favor different presentation styles and would also benefit from comparing the videos. Also, they were allowed to complete the same activity more than once, so offering three videos gave them more options to choose from.

Learning Activity 3: Vocabulary test

The participants were asked to take a vocabulary test on vocabulary that had been taught by their instructors in class. The intended learning outcome of this activity was to deepen their impression of the words they had learnt. In parts A, B and C of the test, the students had to show their understanding of movie genres, adjectives to describe different types of movies and similar vocabulary in two matching exercises. In part D, they were asked to recognised keywords and apply words related to movies in a multiple-choice task. Through this activity, the participants could familiarize themselves with the vocabulary that the teachers expected them to use in the group presentation.

Learning Activity 4: Vocabulary building from movie reviews

Participants were given six suggested movie reviews from the website of the reputable film critic Roger Ebert. They were required to choose five vocabulary words or phrases that they found particularly useful, impressive, or well-written and explain why they had chosen them in a few sentences. The six movie reviews chosen were the most popular choices among students who had taken the same English course in previous academic years. The participants were also given the option to choose other movie reviews online or from other sources. A range of choices was given to accommodate students with interests in different movie genres and those who had not watched certain movies. Offering more than one choice also allowed them to benefit from comparing different writing styles and perspectives and gave them options to choose from because they were allowed to complete the same activity more than once. This activity was not only doable but also meaningful to students: they had the opportunity to practice and recap what they had learnt in class and demonstrate their understanding of meanings, word forms, and the collocation of vocabulary.

In lesson 1 of English for Communication II, these four learning activities were introduced to both the control and experimental groups to give students a brief idea of what they would be doing in the coming weeks. In lessons 2 and 3 for the F2F classes and at the same period online for the BL classes, the students were taught the content needed for the learning activities and given detailed instructions on how to do the activities. The students in the BL classes – that is, those in the experimental group – were required to watch the pre-recorded videos and read the learning materials on OLE as the online and self-study part of the BL intervention. All of the participants were required to choose and complete at least two of the four activities using the mode assigned to their classes and submit them at some point before up to the day of their group presentation. All classes were given the same number of days (30) to complete the activities. They were given the option to repeat the same activity if they wished. The instructors of the classes involved in the study used the same rubrics for marking.

Questionnaire

On the day of the CA01 Group Presentation, the students in the classes that included BL were invited to fill in a questionnaire that comprised two sections: the students’ demographic data (three items) and their perception of the BL elements (six items for this English course and nine items for English learning in general). The questions were adapted from existing survey questions based on items drawn from the appendix of Owston et al. [15] or developed by the researcher. The students were asked to respond to the questions provided on a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). For higher response rates, the questionnaire mainly consisted of closed questions, along with a few follow-ups short questions. Closed questions could also be easily coded and analysed statistically, which was important given the limited time and resources of this study. To ensure the content validity of the questionnaire, the draft was reviewed and commented on by other three English instructors teaching the same English course. The questionnaire was also piloted with 20 students who were not involved in the study to test its reliability. To ensure that students could fully understand and correctly interpret the meaning of the questions, they were explained by the teachers one by one in both English and Cantonese. The teachers informed the students that there were no right or wrong answers, and this was also stated clearly at the beginning of the questionnaire. The students were asked to choose the answer that most closely reflected their perceptions and informed that their answers would not in any way influence their results in the English course or relationship with their instructors.

Semi-structured interview

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted within two weeks after the BL intervention. Random sampling was used to determine the participants to be interviewed in this qualitative research. A total of eight participants were randomly selected among students in the classes with the BL component who completed the questionnaire. The interviews were held in both Cantonese and English, which were the first and second languages shared by the participants and the researcher. They lasted around 20 minutes each and were video-recorded and partially transcribed.

Data collection and analysis

Because of the involvement of human participants as research subjects, applications for ethical review for research involving human subjects were submitted to and approved by the review boards of both universities involved in this research project, the Departmental Research Committee of Institutional Review Board and the Research Ethics Committee of the universities involved. The researcher then thoroughly explained to all of the students and teachers who participated in the study the nature, objectives and sampling method of the study two weeks before the data collection. They were assured that their identities would remain anonymous, and the data collected would only be used for the study. The students who decided to participate in the study signed a letter of consent before the data collection began.

Figure 1 shows the timeframe of the research procedure of Thesis I. A pretest in the form of a group presentation was given to students in the classes concerned approximately one month before the intervention. This pretest was treated as the baseline for comparing the students’ performance before and after the intervention. The two instructors in this study marked 10% of the pretests (three group presentations) together and discussed the marking criteria to ensure standardisation. The four learning activities for the preparation of the CA01 Group Presentation were given to students during lesson 4 of the course. The students were required to finish and submit at least two activities using the mode assigned to their classes. The deadline for submitting these learning activities was lesson 12, the day of the CA01 Group Presentation. On the day of the presentation, the questionnaire was distributed to participants F2F in the classes in the experimental group to collect their views on the BL design and determine whether any behavioural changes could be observed. Within two weeks after the speaking assessment, the researcher randomly selected eight participants, including three ethnic minority (EM) students and five Hong Kong (HK) students, for individual semi-structured interviews to probe their perspectives on the BL activities. Data on marks, timestamps, number of attempts and number of completed learning activities were collected for further analysis. The marks that the students received on the learning activities were collected because this study was a pilot study for Thesis II, in which the researcher will compare the relationship between the grades of these learning activities and those of the CA01 Group Presentation. The pilot of the rubrics will test if the marking criteria and descriptors were suitable and clearly written. The two instructors marked 10% of each of the learning activities (seven pieces of Activity 1, four pieces of Activity 2 and four pieces of Activity 4) together and discussed the marking criteria to achieve marking standardisation just as they did for the pretest. The marking of Activity 3 was not discussed as it was a vocabulary test without a subjective marking component. The marking scheme was shared and confirmed by the teachers involved in the study before the intervention.

Given the worsening of the COVID-19 outbreak and a significant surge in cases across Hong Kong in January 2022, the School decided to switch the teaching and learning to an online mode beginning in late January. The students in the control group were taught the material that would be needed for the four learning activities and received instructions on how to complete them at the beginning of the semester when they still had F2F English classes. Because they were not allowed to come back to school in the middle of the term, the control group was advised to submit their learning activities to their instructors via email instead. This was to differentiate the submission methods between two groups of participants. The experimental group was asked to submit their work on Google Form (an online platform) as previously arranged. The questionnaire, initially to be completed on paper, was converted to an online questionnaire on Google Form, and the semi-structured interviews, which were to be conducted face-to-face, were performed on Zoom instead.

After the data collection, the quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately. The study employed both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis for the quantitative data. The descriptive analysis, which contained demographics, frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations, was completed using Excel and SPSS Version 23. Inferential analysis was completed by independent sample t-test using SPSS Version 23 to compare the differences in behaviours and performance in the completion of the learning activities between the two groups of participants. The qualitative data, open-ended responses in the questionnaire, were coded and grouped by content analysis to categorize them thematically. Transcriptions of the interviews were analysed to identify common themes that were then categorized by thematic analysis.

Findings

Pretest

A pretest in the format of a group presentation was given to the participants in the study approximately one month before the intervention to assess and compare their initial levels of knowledge. Table 2 shows the scores of the control group (traditional F2F approach) and experimental group (BL approach) in the pretest.

Table 2: Comparison of pretest results.

Independent sample t-test results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the control group (M = 57.52, SD = 8.18) and the experimental group (M = 58.36, SD = 10.14); t (95.81) = -0.452, p = 0.652 (> 0.05). This result showed that the two groups had comparable initial conditions before the intervention, and this constituted the basis for the internal validity of the intervention in this study.

Research question 1: Students’ completion of the four learning activities

Table 3: Number of activities completed.

A descriptive analysis was conducted to answer research question 1 (whether the traditional F2F and BL groups differed in the number of the four learning activities they completed, the popularity of the activities and the timing of completion). The results are shown in the tables below. Table 3 shows the number of activities completed by the two groups of students.

More students from the experimental group than the control group completed two or more activities. The mean of the number of activities completed was greater in the experimental group (M = 2.19, SD = 1.12) than the control group (M = 1.69, SD = 0.98). The results imply that students who studied using the BL approach were keener on completing the four learning activities.

Table 4 displays the popularity of the four learning activities (namely, the number of times the activities were attempted). There were more attempts at Activity 3 (the vocabulary test) than any other activity. Activity 3 had an 85.51% completion rate in the experimental group (59 attempts completed by 52 students) and a 63.64% completion rate (35 attempts completed by 34 students) in the control group. The next most popular activity was the peer review of an oral presentation (Activity 1), with a completion rate of 59.42% in the experimental group (41 attempts completed by 31 students) and 50.91% in the control group (28 attempts completed by 23 students). The least popular activities differed between the groups. They were vocabulary building (Activity 4) in the experimental group, with a completion rate of 30.43% (21 attempts completed by 21 students), and reflective writing (Activity 2) in the control group, with a completion rate of 14.55% (8 attempts completed by 8 students). As Table 4 shows, the number of attempts for most activities was greater in the experimental group than the control group, with Activity 4 the only exception.

Table 4: Popularity of the four learning activities.

The study allowed participants to complete the same learning activity more than once if they wished. Table 5 shows the number of students who did the same activity more than once. It reveals that overall, more students in the experimental group (23.19%, 16 students) chose to do an activity more than once than students in the control group (16.36%, 9 students). The percentage of students in the experimental group who did Activity 3 more than once (10.14%, 7 students) was almost three times the percentage in the control group (3.64%, 2 students). A slightly higher percentage of students in the experimental group (10.14%, 7 students) repeated Activity 1 than in the control group (9.09%, 5 students). The between-group differences between the number of students who repeated Activities 2 or 4 were not significant.

Table 5: Number of students who chose to do the same activity more than once.

Table 6 shows the time spent on the learning activities in the two groups of participants. As revealed in the table, the students in the experimental group spent less time on all of the learning activities.

The greatest difference in time spent was on Activity 1: the time spent by the control group was almost double that spent by the experimental group. Independent sample t-test results show that there was a statistically significant difference between the control group (M = 33.14, SD = 15.94) and the experimental group (M = 16.61, SD = 11.32); t(45.179) = 4.734, p < 0.001. The Cohen’s effect size value (d = 1.20) suggests a very high practical significance. The t-test results show that the time spent on Activity 2 also differed significantly between the control group (M = 43, SD = 23.96) and the experimental group (M = 24.13, SD = 14.75); t(36) = 2.8, p = 0.008 (< 0.05). Again, the Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.95) suggests a very high practical significance. In contrast, the time spent on Activity 3 did not differ significantly between the control group (M = 29.4, SD = 14.37) and the experimental group (M = 26.95, SD = 14.99); t (92) = 0.778, p = 0.439 (> 0.05). The Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.17) suggests a low practical significance. There was also no statistically significant difference in the time spent on Activity 4 between the control group (M = 54.05, SD = 25.56) and the experimental group (M = 46.43, SD = 33.19); t(41) = 0.845, p = 0.403 (> 0.05), and the Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.26) suggests that the difference had little practical significance. On average, the mean of the time spent for all activities was 26.29 minutes (SD = 19.84) for the students in the experimental group and 37.53 minutes (SD = 21.03) for the students in the control group. A statistically significant difference was found between the two groups t (242) = 4.199 p < 0.001. The Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.55) suggests a moderate practical significance.

Table 6: Comparison of time spent on the learning activities.

Table 7 shows when the learning activities were submitted. The reference point is the submission deadline; thus, the numbers shown in the table are the days before the submission deadline. The students were given one month to complete the learning activities but mostly accessed and finished the activities during the last week before the submission deadline.

As shown in Table 7, the students in the experimental group generally completed the activities later, i.e., closer to the deadline (6.74 days, SD = 6.69) than those in the control group (9.38 days, SD = 9.45). The independent sample t-test results show that there was a statistically significant between-group difference in mean submission days before the deadline: t (242) = 2.544, p = 0.012 (< 0.05). The Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.32) suggests a low to moderate practical significance. The mean submission days before the deadline differed significantly between the groups only for Activity 2 (control group, M = 5.38, SD = 2.67; experimental group, M = 1.47, SD = 2.42; t (36) = 3.979, p < 0.001). The Cohen’s effect size value (d = 1.53) suggests a very high practical significance.

Table 7: Submission day of the learning activities.

Figure 2 above shows the pattern of submission for the four learning activities combined. It is obvious that neither group of students studied regularly. Although students were given one month to finish the learning activities, most of them chose to start working on them near the submission deadline. The left side of the figure reveals that students started working on the learning activities 29 or 30 days before submission, that is, when the learning activities were first explained and released to them at the beginning of the intervention. The comparatively large number of students from the control group who began the activities right away could have been the result of the teacher’s explanation of the activities in class. Those who began early in the experimental group might have been curious to find out more about the activities. The most noticeable spikes for both groups occurred approximately five to seven days before the submission deadline. The spike of the experimental group was slightly higher than that of the control group. Most of the students finished the learning activities approximately one week before the deadline, after a reminder from their teachers in class. There was a second surge in submissions one to three days before the deadline. Almost 22% of the submissions in the experimental group were submitted a single day before the deadline.

Research question 2: Students’ performance in four learning activities

Table 8 shows the students’ scores on the learning activities. As displayed in the table, the students in the experimental and control groups received similar scores on most of the learning activities.

The students in the experimental group performed slightly better on Activities 1, 2, and 4 than the students in the control group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the overall score derived from all four activities between the control group (M = 62.60, SD = 15.35) and the experimental group (M = 58.95, SD = 17.24); t(242) = 1.675, p = 0.095 (> 0.05). The Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.22) suggests a low practical significance. The only statistically significant between-group difference in scores was found on Activity 3, with the students in the control group performing better than those in the experimental group (control group, M = 69.94, SD = 13.90; the experimental group, M = 56.34, SD = 20.13; t(89.763) = 3.865, p < 0.001). The Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.78) suggests a moderate to high practical significance. Based on the overall scores for all learning activities, it can be inferred that the one-month-long BL intervention did not impact the participants’ scores on the learning activities.

Research question 3: Students’ perception of BL

Table 9 displays the demographic characteristics of the survey participants in this study. A total of 62 out of 69 participants in the experimental group (89.86%) completed the online questionnaire. The majority of the respondents (85.48%, 53 students) were female; 14.52% (9 students) were male. Thirty-four students (54.84%) were 20 years old or younger; twenty-five (40.32%) were aged 21 to 25 years, and three (4.84%) were aged 26 to 30 years.

Table 8: Comparison of scores in learning activities.

Table 9: Demographic characteristics of the survey participants (N = 62).

The responses to the statements from the second section of the questionnaire, which probe students’ perception of the BL component, are reported in Table 10 and Figures 3, 4, and 5.

Table 10: Students’ perception of BL adoption.

Table 8 demonstrates that students largely had positive attitudes towards BL and were enthusiastic about the four online learning activities. The mean scores of the responses to the 12 questions ranged from 3.58 to 4.26, with acceptable standard deviations; thus, the students displayed a high level of agreement about the statements in the questionnaire. Five items were rated highly (mean score ≥ 4). Question 12, “Blended learning approach requires students to be more self-disciplined compared with traditional face-to-face approach in learning English”, was given the highest mean score, 4.26 (SD = 0.85), indicating that the students perceived self-discipline as very important to effective learning in a BL environment. No respondents chose to disagree or strongly disagree in answer to this question. The low SD indicates a low disparity in the students’ responses to this statement. Question 5, “It was good that students could choose which online learning activities to do in this course”, obtained the second highest mean score, 4.18 (SD = 0.9), revealing students’ appreciation of the opportunity to select which learning activities to complete. Both Question 3 (“The blended learning approach in this course can meet individual students’ learning needs”) and Question 4 (“The requirement of completing at least 2 out of 4 online learning activities was good”) obtained a mean score of 4 (SD = 0.91 and SD = 0.89 respectively). The results show that the students recognised that BL was an approach that could meet their learning needs and considered the number of activities to be completed reasonable and welcome.

Although the students mostly accepted the BL learning approach, their responses to Question 8, “I am interested in using blended learning approach in studying English”, (M = 3.69, SD = 0.9) and Question 9, “Blended learning approach is more interesting than traditional face-to-face approach in learning English” (M = 3.58, SD = 1.02), showed that some were not interested in BL or failed to find it more interesting than traditional F2F approach in learning English. Additionally, the results for Question 11, “Blended learning approach is suitable for students at this English proficiency level” (M = 3.65, SD = 0.79), showed that the participants were unsure of the suitability of BL for students at their level.

The next question asked the students to identify the mode they preferred to do certain types of activities: in an in-person classroom setting or online. Figure 3 presents their responses.

The students favoured online over F2F learning for all of the activities. The most distinct contrast was seen for Activity 2 (reflective writing), with 75.81% (47 respondents) preferring to complete it online and 24.19% (15 respondents) preferring to complete it in the physical classroom. The differences in preferences for a given setting were smallest for Activity 1 (peer review of an oral presentation), with 53.23% (33 respondents) favoring completing the activity online and 46.77% (29 respondents) preferring the physical classroom.

The second last question probed students’ preferred format for this English course. Figure 4 illustrates the study format students preferred for this English course.

Figure 4 shows that 69% (43 respondents) preferred a BL format for this English course, which meant that they supported the idea of having some F2F teaching, or activities replaced with online learning. Among them, 21% (9 respondents) opined that their preference was based on the flexibility BL offered in how the assignments will be completed, and 12% (5 respondents) appreciated the fact that the BL approach allowed them to receive teaching and guidance in a traditional F2F classroom and practice online on their own. Other reasons that the respondents gave for preferring BL were that it was free, funny, convenient, enjoyable, saved time, offered more choice, and was appropriate during the pandemic. The 24% of respondents (15) who preferred an entirely F2F format mainly indicated that they could focus better when teachers were present in a classroom setting. They considered that the teaching was easier to understand and more efficient in the F2F format, especially because the interaction with teachers was immediate and questions could be asked immediately. Some of the respondents also indicated that the F2F format was less prone to technical problems and more fun. Only 7% (4 respondents) wished to complete this English course entirely online. They preferred the online option because it seemed easier and safer to them due to the ongoing pandemic.

The last item in the questionnaire asked the mode students would prefer to do English learning activities. Their preferences are shown in Figure 5.

Just under half of the 29 respondents indicated that they would prefer to engage in English learning activities in a combination of settings: both in the physical classroom and online. They explained that some activities require a clear explanation from the teacher, whereas others can be completed through self-study; BL supported this flexibility. Others noted that the opportunity to learn in two settings would let them enjoy different methods of learning English and cater to different learning needs. A third of the respondents (34%; 21 respondents) expressed a preference for doing English learning activities exclusively online because they could complete them anytime and anywhere according to their schedules. These respondents also felt that doing learning activities online is easier, quicker, funnier, safer, convenient, and environmentally friendly. The remaining respondents (19%; 12 respondents) indicated that they would prefer to do English learning activities in the classroom because they would be able to focus better, interact with their teachers and classmates, ask a teacher for guidance, and avoid technical issues.

Data were available not only from the questionnaire but also from the semi-structured interviews. The interview responses were partially transcribed and then categorized into themes that are discussed below. Quotes from the interviews conducted in Cantonese were translated into English by the researcher. A professional translator was consulted when the researcher was unsure about the translation.

Students’ preference in study mode in learning English

Three-quarters (75%) of the interviewees (1 EM student and 5 HK students) indicated that they preferred to learn English using the BL approach. They believed that BL offered the benefits of both traditional F2F teaching and online learning. They commented that it was time to adopt contemporary methods of teaching and learning because they and their peers were familiar with the use of technology. One considered the BL approach a challenge to build students’ confidence.

The mixture of traditional F2F teaching and online learning combines the advantages of both approaches. For F2F classes, we can learn new knowledge with the teacher’s guidance, and we can receive instant responses for questions, while for the online part, it can be used for practice and skill drilling. (S3-HK and S5-HK) This approach is more fun compared with the traditional method as we can have the opportunity to explore more by ourselves. (S4-HK)

We have been doing traditional approach for many years. It’s time to try new things as students nowadays should not have big problems with technology. Personally, I think students at this level could handle BL if the proportion of online learning is not too large in the course. (S7-HK)

Nonetheless, 25% of the interviewees (2 EM students) expressed hesitation about studying English using the BL approach, which was new to them. They admitted their unwillingness to try something new but also valued certain advantages that the traditional F2F approach had for both teachers and students.

It’s easier for students to follow the teacher’s instruction and the progress. Students may be lazy to learn by themselves. It’s easier for teachers to manage students’ problems. (S1-EM)

I’m used to the traditional approach and just don’t want to step out of my comfort zone. With the teacher in front of me, I would be more motivated and would not be lazy. (S8-EM)

Students’ choice of setting for the learning activities

Half of the interviewees (3 EM students and 1 HK student) preferred to do the learning activities in the physical classroom. They expressed that it was easier for them to concentrate and perform well because they weren’t distracted. The students also valued the ease of interaction with teachers and classmates. They could ask questions immediately in class and engage in discussion with their peers. For example, one EM student mentioned,

If students are not forced to study in the classroom, we might become lazier because of the freedom allowed in the online environment. For traditional F2F classes, we can ask the teacher questions immediately. (S8-EM)

Another student agreed:

I enjoy the instant interaction with my teacher and peers. If we do online learning, I may not have the courage to ask my teacher questions outside class time. (S7-HK)

However, the other half of the interviewees (4 HK students) preferred to perform the learning activities online, primarily because working online offered convenience and flexibility. For instance, two interviewees expressed similar ideas about the flexibility in timing offered by online learning.

I prefer to do learning activities online because of the flexibility of time allowed. (S3-HK)

I could complete these activities outside class time and there is no time limit for the completion of each activity. (S5-HK)

Another interviewee also indicated that she saved time by finishing the learning activities online.

The teaching videos uploaded on OLE are all clear enough for me to learn by myself without the guidance of the teacher. I actually find doing activities in class quite time-consuming, so I’d rather do exercise and practice on my own. (S4-HK)

Some students added that doing learning activities online was eco-friendlier and more attractive because they could type words on electronic devices instead of writing on paper.

The interviewees were asked to choose the way that they would prefer to complete each specific learning activity. Activity 1 (the peer review for an oral presentation) was the only one that more students (75%, 6 interviewees) preferred to do in the physical classroom. Most of them thought that it was smoother and more natural, accurate and effective to listen to oral presentations in class because they could perceive attitudes, tone, and body language more clearly and paid closer attention to what was going on in the classroom. One student explained,

I would pay more attention if I listened to the presentation in the classroom. If I watched the recorded videos online, I would skip or fast forward and would not watch seriously. (S3-HK)

Another student expressed concern similarly and added that the quality of the video might affect how she and her peers evaluated one another.

Sometimes the video recordings may not be in good quality and cause us difficulties to listen and understand. Live presentation is more natural and clearer that we can see the delivery skills like body language of the presenters. (S6-HK)

Only 25% (2 interviewees) preferred to do Activity 1 online. They liked being able to stop, rewind and view the recorded videos again if necessary. They also appreciated being able to do the activity on their own, without having to engage in discussion with classmates.

Almost all of the interviewees (87.5%, 7 interviewees) pointed out that they would prefer to do Activity 2 (reflective writing) online. Only one interviewee (12.5%) expressed a preference for doing in the physical classroom. Most who thought that it should be done online liked that there was no time limit for finishing the task, so they could watch the YouTube videos repeatedly and have sufficient time to brainstorm, plan and write. One indicated that typing was more convenient for her than writing words on paper. Most of the interviewees also favoured doing Activity 3 (the vocabulary test) online (62.5%, 5 interviewees), whereas 37.5% (3 interviewees) thought that it should be done in the physical classroom. Those who preferred online regarded the convenience of looking up the words or searching for information online as the key factor. Those who supported another mode emphasized that if it were a test, doing it in the physical classroom could prevent cheating and assess students’ real ability in the face of time and peer pressure.

Approximately two-thirds of the interviewees (62.5%, 5 interviewees) indicated that they preferred to do Activity 4 (vocabulary building from movie reviews) online, although 25% (2 interviewees) expressed a preference for doing it in the physical classroom and 12.5% (1 interviewee) thought that both modes would be acceptable. Some opposing responses were collected in response to this question. One confident student stated that she could finish the activity through self-study without the teacher’s guidance, whereas two students found the activity quite difficult and believed that they needed direct and immediate guidance from the teacher. The students who preferred to do this vocabulary building exercise online opined that it was convenient to be able to read move reviews on websites and look up vocabulary and expressions online. One specified that she spent longer on this activity than the other activity she chose; doing it online was more relaxing as there was no time limit. The only student who thought that both modes could be considered mentioned:

It wouldn’t have much effect in either way because the way you do it doesn’t have much impact on the activity itself. (S8-EM)

Advantages and disadvantages of completing the learning activities online

Interviewees were asked to share the advantages and disadvantages of completing the learning activities online based on their positive and negative experiences in doing so in the study. Interestingly, the points the interviewees made conflicted somewhat. Firstly, 62.5% (5 interviewees) affirmed that completing learning activities online was more convenient because they could choose a time that suited their schedule and find a quiet and comfortable place to work, even at difficult moments during the pandemic.

There is no time limit for each activity, so we can finish the activities peacefully in the place convenient to us. (S3-HK)

I can control the time for self-learning because I can watch the teaching videos anytime and anywhere. (S4-HK)

I can choose a quiet place and a comfortable environment to complete the activities. (S6-HK)

Doing the learning activities online saved them time and money and kept them safe and healthy.

We can still keep learning even under the situation like COVID and we don’t have to worry about our health. (S1-EM and S2-EM)

Nevertheless, 37.5% (3 interviewees) found that the freedom allowed by the online environment threatened their concentration. They expressed that it could be difficult to find a quiet place to on the activities and that disturbances could distract them.

It’s difficult to focus because the people around us may cause disturbance. (S7-HK)

It is easy to be distracted because students may always have another device with them and turn out the time for completing the activity is longer than expected. (S5-HK)

Sometimes, it’s hard for me to find a quiet place to learn and to focus. (S8-EM)

Secondly, students highlighted the isolation and lack of interaction and communication in the online environment. Half of the interviewees (4) were concerned that they wouldn’t have enough opportunities to interact and exchange ideas when studying in the absence of teachers and classmates. One even stated that the lack of competition from peers would affect her performance.

Since I could not have instant communication with the instructor, it took me some time to figure out the parts that I could not understand clearly after watching the teaching videos. (S3-HK and S5-HK)

I cannot ask the teacher immediately when I encounter problems. I can only ask the teacher later, or perhaps I may not have enough courage to ask. The content of the teaching video for activity four is a little bit difficult to understand. I discussed with other classmates and tried to sort out the meaning together. (S6-HK)

Without students physically sitting in the same classroom, there is a lack of a competitive environment with peer pressure, my performance may be worse because I may not strive hard to do my best. (S7-HK)

However, 25% of the interviewees (2) were confident that they could manage self-learning online on their own. One asserted that the online setting would let her work without comparisons and peer pressure.

Most importantly, I can repeat watching the teaching videos a few times to ensure that I thoroughly understand and do not miss out on any main points. Watching the teaching videos a few times helps deepen my understanding. After watching all videos, I can then choose the activities that I am interested in to work on. (S4-HK)

We are free from pressure without other students around us to compare the performance. (S2-EM)

Thirdly, 37.5% (3 interviewees) worried about fairness and ethical issues if activities were done online in the absence of a teacher to monitor students and invigilate. If students cheated, the purpose and essence of testing were lost. One student pointed out that

Cheating is an issue because it’s effortless to look up words online, copy from online sources or even ask others to complete the activities for us. There is a problem of fairness. (S4-HK)

Despite these concerns, 62.5% of the interviewees (5) acknowledged that sources such as online dictionaries and a large online database helped them to do activities online and improve the accuracy of their answers. One stated that working in Google Forms made it easier to keep track of work that had been completed.

We can always check grammar, spelling again to make sure that the answers are correct. (S1-EM, S3-HK, S5-HK, S6-HK and S7-HK)

It’s more convenient to collect information and keep records of our answers. (S7-HK)

The auto-correct function in Word/technological devices help detect my spelling mistakes and enhance the accuracy. (S3-HK)

Lastly, 87.5% of interviewees (7) told the researcher that this was the first time that they had taken an English course with a BL design. All of them appreciated this opportunity. They considered the experience new, fresh, and interesting and were willing to try BL again in the future. They found it particularly practical for their future because they predicted that BL would become a trend.

It helps us adapt to learning with the help of technology which should be the trend in the future. (S3-HK and S6-HK)

However, 12.5% (1 respondent) had reservations because she was not used to the BL approach and doing activities online.

I feel unnatural to do activities online because I am not so used to it. (S8-EM)

Although most of the students liked experimenting with BL and doing activities online, they criticized the design restrictions of Google Forms.

The layout of the vocabulary test on Google form is a bit difficult to read and understand. I need to scroll up and down many times to check and confirm. (S5-HK)

A second (S7-HK) expressed a similar opinion about Google Forms.

Satisfaction of the BL design in this study

All of the eight student interviewees were satisfied with the BL design in this study and were grateful for the opportunity and experience offered by the study. They enjoyed the freedom and flexibility in terms of the time allowed, number of learning activities required and choices of activities. All of the interviewees agreed that it was reasonable and feasible to ask students to finish at least two out of four learning activities in the time that they were given (one month to watch the teaching videos on OLE and complete the learning activities on Google Forms). The students also appreciated having the opportunity to choose which activities to finish and being able to repeat an activity. Due to this flexible arrangement, no learning activities were compulsory; hence, the students did not suffer from stress. Besides these factors, the proportions of the F2F teaching and online self-learning elements were carefully planned and allocated. Because the online component was limited, the students were able to handle the self-study. Additionally, they were pleased with the technology used in the BL components, especially the easy and convenient access to OLE and Google Forms.

I super enjoy the experience this time and am really satisfied with the design. I think my ability and language standard are sufficient for me to handle the online self-learning part. The freedom and flexibility given are what I enjoy most in this blended learning design. (S4-HK)

We were given one month to submit the learning activities, so we had plenty of time to learn, plan and complete.

We were also given the freedom to choose at least 2 out of 4 of the learning activities. The time allowed, the flexibility given, and the number of activities required were all reasonable and satisfactory. (S6-HK)

I particularly appreciate that the activities were not compulsory, but we were given choices to finish two and we could even choose to repeat doing the same activity, so I don’t feel stressful. (S8-EM)

Challenges of learning English in the BL approach

Half of the interviewees (1 EM student and 3 HK students) expressed that self-motivation was their biggest barrier and the most challenging part of learning English using the BL approach.

We must be very self-disciplined in managing our time. If we were lazy, it’s easy for us to give up. (S7-HK)

Self-motivation is the most obvious barrier for students at our level if we have to do BL. Without peer support and learning atmosphere in the classroom, we may become lazy and less selfdriven to study. (S8-HK)

Discussion

Through collecting and analysing quantitative and qualitative data on an experimental one-month BL component in an English course, the impact of careful BL design on students’ reactions, attitudes and accomplishments in higher education was explored.

The results suggest that thoughtful consideration is critical to ensure the quality of BL in a course. The findings align with previous research, including Gyamfi and Gyaase [54] and Zhang and Zhu [21], and corroborate that BL is more successful in some ways than traditional F2F learning and is welcomed by most students. The personalized feature of the BL design in this study was greatly appreciated by participants. Most welcomed the freedom and flexibility provided and the modest amount of online self-learning required. Limited use of online self-learning, as opposed to more extensive use, may have helped the students to adapt to new selflearning methods more easily and could have made a difference in the effectiveness of the BL environment. The findings of this study indicate that load and time given are both influential in students’ acceptance of BL. This is consistent with the results in Al Fadda’s study [31]. The students in the BL group completed more learning activities, were more eager to repeat the same activity and spent less time per activity. This shows the time efficiency of BL and its promotion of completing diverse activities. Therefore, BL design can be considered a decisive predictor of students’ impressions and perceptions of BL. The results have implications for both teachers and programme administrators: considering the learning styles of different students, allowing some flexibility for individual learning needs, and creating a relaxing learning environment are all essential when adopting BL.

This was the first opportunity for most of the participants to experience BL in the study of English; thus, they found it new and fresh. During the COVID-19 pandemic, most teachers and students not only became much more accepting of the incorporation of technology in education but also gradually mastered the skills needed for online teaching and learning. The participants in this study perceived the use of technology such as OLE, Google Forms, and pre-recorded teaching videos as attractive, eco-friendly and user-friendly. As Cheng [71] and Lam [58] mentioned, BL could help students adapt to future trends in higher education and prepare for future employment. Some of the participants in our study recognised the self-study experience as an opportunity to enhance their confidence and their time-management, self-motivation, and independent decision-making skills. Some interviewees indicated that they found the BL experience novel and had never experienced BL in an English course before. These findings suggest that it is essential for frontline teachers and course developers to work collaboratively and continually explore new teaching methods to keep students interested. This aligns with the findings of Evans et al. [59] and Lam [57]. Nevertheless, some of the participants expressed disinterest in BL and a preference for traditional F2F learning. As most of the students mentioned in the interviews, self-motivation presented an obstacle in the blended course. The students had to take the responsibility for watching the teaching videos as soon as possible and completing the learning activities before the submission deadline. That students are aware that they lack self-motivation and the ability to work autonomously has implications for instructors. Students should be given adequate instruction and guidance as both are vital to the acquisition of new knowledge. More students in the experimental group than in the control group submitted their learning activities just before the deadline, after a reminder from their teachers. This suggests that instructors should teach students how to be autonomous self-learners, overcome difficulties and build self-confidence to help them embrace BL. Furthermore, some students had negative experiences with unstable Wi-Fi connections. This reveals that technical elements in BL can raise issues that are beyond the control of the participants and even of the course designers.

The findings of this study echo Zhang and Zhu’s [21] observation that the flexibility and convenience of BL may enhance students’ satisfaction with the learning environment. Some students enjoyed the convenience and ubiquity of the BL components in this study because they could complete the learning activities at their convenience and wherever they wanted. When they completed activities online, they were able to think about subjects in depth and work carefully, without being under time constraints. However, it is noteworthy that they pinpointed the absence of human contact and social opportunities, particularly the absence of teachers and peers, as challenges. These results can be attributed to the nature of BL and the different interactivity allowed in the online component of BL compared with a traditional F2F setting. Students attending lessons in a physical classroom can mingle with their classmates and teachers and discuss their lessons to obtain knowledge and exchange ideas. They felt isolated in the online BL sessions as they could not socialize directly with the people around them. Mudra [5] and Simbolon [36] reported similar findings. Some students felt helpless and anxious because they could not seek help from their teachers at once when they encountered problems. This provides further evidence that instructors and course designers should match the learning modality to the nature of the activities. For example, most students preferred to do the peer review of an oral presentation (Activity 1) in the physical classroom because it felt more authentic, and they could get responses immediately. When the activity was performed online, the only interaction was between the student and the task. More interactions were available in the physical classroom, including interactions with peers and with teachers. This is characteristic of the combination and complementarity of traditional F2F teaching and online learning in BL. Careful and thoughtful BL design could ensure adequate contact with instructors and peers in a physical classroom, as well as the inclusion of online sessions that could save time and develop student skills. The vocabulary test (Activity 3) illustrates another issue that must be considered. Some students worried that others would cheat or act unethically because they could access online resources while taking the test. Some students also found the Google Forms layout of Activity 3 a bit confusing as they needed to keep scrolling up and down the screen to match the statements and the vocabulary. Notably, technology does not necessarily guarantee improvement in every aspect of learning activities. The lack of clarity that resulted from the Google Forms design might have reduced student interest and performance. Either the Google Forms layout should be modified, or another online platform adopted to avoid the problem.

Conclusion

A major reason to explore the use of BL is to evaluate its feasibility and effectiveness. This can be done by assessing students’ learning outcomes, participation, satisfaction, and achievements in a single context. Additionally, the impact of BL on the learning process should not be neglected because the learning process is the key to achieving more meaningful learning experiences [72]. Since the education reform introduced by the Hong Kong government in 2000, the tertiary education sector, which previously served the elite, has restructured to provide mass higher education. Selffinancing continuing education providers have to compete for students in this competitive environment [23]. Providing students with better learning experiences through innovative teaching methods and curriculum design could be a sound promotional strategy for institutions engaged in this battle. Given the limited literature on community college learners and increasing number of students at sub-degree level, this study was needed and should give educators a deeper understanding of the sector.

The study investigated the effects of the adoption of BL in an English course at a continuing education institute in Hong Kong on student behaviour, perceptions, and performance. It provides support and insights for the adoption and implementation of BL in Hong Kong higher education institutions for ESL teaching and learning. It enriches our understanding of the influences, feasibility, benefits, challenges, and future professional development needs of BL adoption in an English course taken by sub-degree students in Hong Kong. The results show that BL motivate students, allows the incorporation of diverse activities, and improves time efficiency for students in learning English. The outcomes of this pilot study provide a direction, methodology, model, and framework for BL in English courses. These aspects of BL will be further investigated in Thesis II.

The limitations of this exploratory study suggest directions for future research. First, although this study included both local HK and EM students, the participants were from one higher diploma programme only. The number of participants might be too small to allow broad generalizations to be made about other educational contexts. A less homogeneous sample should be employed in Thesis II and in future research that investigates student learning outcomes in BL environments. Second, this study focused mostly on student reactions to BL, including behavioural changes and perceptions of BL. The influence of BL on student learning outcomes, in comparison to F2F learning environments, was not covered. Thesis II will extend the study from student performance on learning activities to their achievement on one assessment in the English course.

To effectively orchestrate the content in the F2F and online parts of the course, needs analysis should be conducted to understand the demands and interests of each group of students so that modifications could be made based on their learning styles and the classroom dynamics. The study results relating to the feasibility of BL and its effects on student performance and perceptions could be a useful blueprint for the institute when it considers approaches to teaching and learning in the future. The findings could provide support, insights and references for educators and decisionmakers in higher education in Hong Kong as they plan educational innovations and introduce policies for BL implementation. No unique learning method or environment works perfectly for all learners. Promoting an accessible, flexible, interactive, and stressfree learning environment would align with the aim and vision of BL [73] (Appendix 3).

Acknowledgment

None.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest.

References

1. Shaykina OI (2015) Blended learning in English language teaching: Open educational resources used for academic purposes in Tomsk Polytechnic University. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6(3 S5): 255.
2. Shih RC (2010) Blended learning using video-based blogs: Public speaking for English as a second language students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26(6): 883-897.
3. Wu LF (2013) Learners’ perceptions of a blended English learning program in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Distance Education 11(2): 4-13.
4. Yu W, Du X (2019) Implementation of a blended learning model in content based EFL curriculum. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(5).
5. Mudra H (2018) Blended English language learning as a course in an Indonesian context: An exploration toward EFL learners’ perceptions. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology 3(2): 28-51.
6. Wang L (2021) Blending a linguistics course for enhanced student learning experiences in a Hong Kong higher education institution. In CP Lim, CR Graham (Eds.), Blended Learning for Inclusive and Quality Higher Education in Asia. Singapore: Springer pp. 103-124.
7. Klimova B (2017) Evaluation of the blended learning approach in the course of business English–A case study. In TC Huang et al. (Eds.), Emerging Technologies for Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing pp. 326-335.
8. Tongpoon-Patanasorn A, White C (2020) Teachers' and students' perceptions on blended learning in tertiary English language courses: A match? Universal Journal of Educational Research 8(6): 2455-2463.
9. Wichadee S (2018) Significant predictors for effectiveness of blended learning in a language course. Jalt Call Journal 14(1): 25-42.
10. Zhang W, Zhu C (2018) Impact of blended learning on university students’ achievement of English as a second language. International Journal on E-Learning 17(2): 251-273.
11. Tosun S (2015) The effects of blended learning on EFL students’ vocabulary enhancement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 199: 641-647.
12. Webb M, Doman E (2016) Does the flipped classroom lead to increased gains on learning outcomes in ESL/EFL contexts? CATESOL Journal 28(1): 39-67.
13. Alonso F, López G, Manrique D, Viñes JM (2005) An instructional model for web‐based e‐learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology 36(2): 217-235.
14. Inal M, Korkmaz Ö (2019) The effect of web based blended learning on students’ academic achievement and attitudes towards English course. Education and Information Technologies 24(4): 2603-2619.
15. Owston R, York D, Murtha S (2013) Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. The Internet and Higher Education 18: 38-46.
16. Dziuban C, Graham CR, Moskal PD, Norberg A, Sicilia N (2018) Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 15(1): 1-16.
17. Albhnsawy AA, Aliweh AM (2016) Enhancing student teachers' teaching skills through a blended learning approach. International Journal of Higher Education 5(3): 131-136.
18. AlKhaleel A (2019) The advantages of using blended learning in studying English as a foreign language at the University of Tabuk. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM) 9(2): 1-7.
19. Shebansky WJ (2018) Blended learning adoption in an ESL context: Obstacles and guidelines. TESL Canada Journal 35(1): 52-77.
20. Almalki MS, Gruba P (2013) The design of formative blended assessments in tertiary EFL programs: A case study in Saudi Arabia. In H Carter, M Gosper, J Hedberg (Eds.), ASCILITE-Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference. Sydney: Macquarie University pp. 37-46.
21. Zhang W, Zhu C (2020) Blended learning as a good practice in ESL courses compared to F2F learning and online learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL) 12(1): 64-81.
22. Ng P, Tsoi R HL, Fong J, Kwan R, Wang FL (2008) A study on the students’ perception of adopting blended learning at sub-degree level. J Fong, R Kwan, FL Wang (Eds.): Hybrid Learning: A New Frontier. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press 2009 pp. 78-88.
23. Wong P, Ng PM, Mak CK, Chan JK (2016) Students’ choice of sub-degree programmes in self-financing higher education institutions in Hong Kong. Higher Education 71(4): 455-472.
24. Chan YK (2014) Learning approaches and academic achievement in full-time and part-time sub-degree Hong Kong Chinese students. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning 6(2): 75-86.
25. HKSAR Government, Education Bureau, Committee on Self-financing Post-secondary Education (2021) Statistics. Concourse for Self-financing Post-secondary Education.
26. Mendieta Aguilar JA (2012) Blended learning and the language teacher: A literature review. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 14(2): 163-180.
27. Rasheed RA, Kamsin A, Abdullah NA (2020) Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education 144: 103701.
28. Suprabha K, Subramonian G (2015) Blended learning approach for enhancing students' learning experiences in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Technology 11(4): 1-7.
29. Graham CR (2013) Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (3rd ed.,). New York: Routledge pp. 333-350.
30. Hubackova S, Semradova I, Klimova BF (2011) Blended learning in a foreign language teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 28: 281-285.
31. Al Fadda H (2019) The relationship between self-regulations and online learning in an ESL blended learning context. English Language Teaching 12(6): 87-93.
32. Neumeier P (2005) A closer look at blended learning—parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL 17(2): 163-178.
33. Aldalalah OA, Gasaymeh AMM (2014) Perceptions of blended learning competencies and obstacles among educational technology students in light of different anxiety levels and locus of control. Contemporary Educational Technology 5(3): 218-238.
34. Basal A (2015) The implementation of a flipped classroom in foreign language teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 16(4): 28-37.
35. Huang Q (2019) Comparing teacher’s roles of F2f learning and online learning in a blended English course. Computer Assisted Language Learning 32(3): 190-209.
36. Simbolon NE (2021) EFL students’ perceptions of blended learning in English language course: Learning experience and engagement. Journal on English as a Foreign Language 11(1): 152-174.
37. Šafranj J (2013) Using information technology in English language learning procedure: Blended learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 83: 514-521.
38. Osguthorpe RT, Graham CR (2003) Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4(3): 227-33.
39. Gawande V (2016) Blended learning: Confronting the challenges of higher education in Oman. In D Parsons (Ed.), Mobile and Blended Learning Innovations for Improved Learning Outcomes. Hershey: IGI Global pp. 17-40.
40. Alebaikan R, Troudi S (2010) Blended learning in Saudi universities: Challenges and perspectives. ALT-J 18(1): 49-59.
41. Peng R, Fu R (2021) The effect of Chinese EFL students’ learning motivation on learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology pp. 61-74.
42. Kintu MJ, Zhu C, Kagambe E (2017) Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 14(1): 1-20.
43. Kwak DW, Menezes FM, Sherwood C (2015) Assessing the impact of blended learning on student performance. Economic Record 91(292): 91-106.
44. Lim DH, Morris ML (2009) Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society 12(4): 282-293.
45. Jowsey T, Foster G, Cooper-Ioelu P, Jacobs S (2020) Blended learning via distance in pre-registration nursing education: A scoping review. Nurse Education in Practice 44: 102775.
46. Kent D, Sherman B (2013) Pilot study for use of Memrise application by Korean junior college students studying EFL vocabulary in a blended learning context. STEM Journal 14(3): 169-192.
47. Nikiforova M (2021) Blended learning practices in Russian higher education: benefits, challenges, perspectives. In V Erokhin et al. (Eds.), SHS Web of Conferences. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences 99: 1005.
48. Tandoh K, Flis N, Blankson J (2014) Blended learning: History, implementation, benefits, and challenges in higher education. In L Kyei-Blankson, E Ntuli (Eds.), Practical Applications and Experiences In K-20 Blended Learning Environments. Hershey: IGI Global pp. 18-27.
49. Ngigi SKE, Obura EA (2019) Blended learning in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. In J Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Blended Learning Pedagogies and Professional Development in Higher Education. USA: IGI Global pp. 290-306.
50. Chan EYM (2019) Blended learning dilemma: Teacher education in the Confucian heritage culture. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online) 44(1): 36-51.
51. Li KC, Lam H, Lee T (2015) Effectiveness of technology enhancement in blended learning: An instrumental perspective. In KC Li (Ed.), Technology in Education. Transforming Educational Practices with Technology. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer pp. 187-198.
52. Mtebe J, Raphael C (2013) Students’ experiences and challenges of blended learning at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT 9(3): 124.
53. Namyssova G, Tussupbekova G, Helmer J, Malone K, Mir A, Jonbekova D (2019) Challenges and benefits of blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Technology in Education 2(1): 22.
54. Gyamfi S, Gyaase P (2015) Students’ perception of blended learning environment: A case study of the University of Education, Winneba, Kumasi-Campus, Ghana. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT 11(1): 80-100.
55. Chan YM, Chan CMS (2010) Approach to learning of sub-degree students in Hong Kong. Research in Education 84(1): 65-78.
56. Lam YCJ (2016) The student experience of a blended learning accounting course: A case study in Hong Kong [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Nottingham, UK.
57. Lam J (2015a) A thematic analysis of the blended learning experiences of undergraduate students in Hong Kong. In KC Li (Ed.), Technology in Education. Transforming Educational Practices with Technology. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer pp. 215-224.
58. Lam JY (2015b) Autonomy presence in the extended community of inquiry. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning 8(1): 39-61.
59. Evans JC, Yip H, Chan K, Armatas C, Tse A (2020) Blended learning in higher education: Professional development in a Hong Kong university. Higher Education Research & Development 39(4): 643-656.
60. Liao HL, Lu HP (2008) The role of experience and innovation characteristics in the adoption and continued use of e-learning websites. Computers & Education 51(4): 1405-1416.
61. Oturakci M, Yuregir OH (2018) New approach to Rogers’ innovation characteristics and comparative implementation study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 47: 53-67.
62. Waters A (2009) Managing innovation in English language education. Language Teaching 42(4): 421-458.
63. Kapoor KK, Dwivedi YK, Williams MD (2014) Rogers’ innovation adoption attributes: A systematic review and synthesis of existing research. Information Systems Management 31(1): 74-91.
64. Rogers E M (2003) Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
65. Aggarwal AK (2020) Using Deming's cycle for improvement in a course: A case study. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT) 15(3): 31-45.
66. Calder A (2013) ISO27001/ISO27002: A pocket guide. Cambridgeshire: IT Governance Publishing.
67. Walasek TA, Kucharczyk Z, Morawska-Walasek D (2011) Assuring quality of an e-learning project through the PDCA approach. Archives of Materials Science and Engineering 48(1): 56-61.
68. Dudin MN, Smirnova OO, Vysotskaya NV, Frolova EE, Vilkova NG (2017) The Deming cycle (PDCA) concept as a tool for the transition to the innovative path of the continuous quality improvement in production processes of the agro-industrial sector. European Research Studies 20(2B): 283-293.
69. Sun X (2018) Optimizing language learning through designing blended teaching. In E Langran, L Langub (Eds.), Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Waynesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) pp. 578-582.
70. HKSAR Government, Education Bureau (2020) QF Levels. Qualification Frameworks.
71. Cheng MC (2020) Blended Learning in A Hong Kong Vocational Education Program [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
72. Garrison DR, Kanuka H (2004) Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 7(2): 95-105.
73. Wang N, Chen J, Tai M, Zhang J (2021) Blended learning for Chinese university EFL learners: Learning environment and learner perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning 34(3): 297-323.