Blended Learning in a Post-Pandemic Context: A Cross-Sectional Study on Turkish EFL Learners’ Perspectives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v27i3.8805Keywords:
blended learning, cross-sectional research, digital maturity, EFL learners, learner autonomy, student engagementAbstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, various institutions took measures to prevent the spread of the virus. Educational institutions contributed to these efforts by shifting from face-to-face to online learning. One such approach was blended learning, which served as a transitional model between the two. Blended learning has become an integral part of higher education, particularly in English as a foreign language (EFL) instruction. This study investigated Turkish EFL learners’ perceptions of blended learning by comparing two different student cohorts from 2021–2022 and 2024–2025 using a cross-sectional research design. Data were collected through classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with 24 students in total. Although more than 75% of the students acknowledged the flexibility and accessibility of blended learning, persistent concerns remained regarding engagement, socialization, and assessment integrity in online settings. Over time, there has been a slight increase in student acceptance of blended learning, particularly in the areas of autonomous learning and digital literacy. However, many students still expressed a preference for face-to-face instruction, especially for productive skills like speaking and collaborative activities. The study contributed to the growing body of literature by offering a comparative perspective on the challenges and advantages of blended learning in EFL education and providing recommendations for optimizing its effectiveness.
References
Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu-Yılmaz, M. (2006). A study on students’ views on blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 43–56.
Alias, A. A., Manan, N. A. A., Yusof, J., & Pandian, A. (2012). The use of Facebook as language learning strategy (LLS) training tool on college students’ LLS use and academic writing performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.305
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 26(1). 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning. Pfeiffer.
Brodersen, R. M., & Melluzzo, D. (2017). Summary of research on online and blended learning programs that offer differentiated learning options. Regional Educational Laboratory Central, 1–22. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572935.pdf
Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 2523–2546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3
Dixon, T., Christison, M., Dixon, D. H., & Palmer, A. S. (2021). A meta‐analysis of hybrid language instruction and call for future research. The Modern Language Journal, 105(4), 792–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12732
Doncheva, L. (2015). An implementation of a hybrid form of education in foreign language acquisition. Activities in Physical Education & Sport, 5(2), 244–247. Retrieved from https://fsprm.mk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Pages-from-APES-2-2015-28.pdf
Faridi, A., Saleh, M., & Fitriati, S. W. (2020). The effect of hybrid task-based language teaching and critical thinking on writing performance in Indonesia. The New Educational Review, 61(3), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2020.61.3.09
Gascoigne, C., & Parnell, J. (2013). Hybrid language instruction: A case study in beginning French. The French Review, 87(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1353/tfr.2013.0269
Hirata, Y., & Hirata, Y. (2008). Japanese students’ attitudes towards hybrid learning. In J. Fong, R. Kwan & F. L. Wang (Eds.), Hybrid learning and education: Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5169). International Conference on Hybrid Learning, Springer.
Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63, 564–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
Hubackova, S., & Semradova, I. (2016). Evaluation of blended learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 551–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.044
Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81–96 https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.967701
Ja’ashan, M. M. N. H. (2015). Perceptions and attitudes towards blended learning for English courses: A case study of students at University of Bisha. English Language Teaching, 8(9), 40–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n9p40
Lalima, & Dangwal, K. L. (2017). Blended learning: an innovative approach. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050116
Li, X. (2016). A blended learning model of English teaching methodology course guided by constructivism. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 27(1–2), 101-110.
Machumu, H. & Zhu, C. (2017). The relationship between student conceptions of constructivist learning and their engagement in constructivist based blended learning environments. International Journal of Learning Technology, 12(3), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2017.088408
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85–139). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344005000224
Redfern, S. & Naughton, N. (2002). Collaborative virtual environments to support communication and community in ınternet-based distance education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 1(3), 210-220. https://doi.org/10.28945/356
Suwantarathip, O. (2019). Predictors of students’ satisfaction with a hybrid English course. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.522427
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Cognitive load theory (2nd ed.). Springer.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The copyright for all content published in IRRODL remains with the authors.
This copyright agreement and usage license ensure that the article is distributed as widely as possible and can be included in any scientific or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
