Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies >
Investigating College Students’ English Learning Engagement Following the Blended Teaching Mode
Learning engagement is an important indicator to measure learning achievement and teaching effectiveness, however, not much attention has been paid to non-English major students’ learning engagement under the blended teaching mode. To this end, this article aims to examine their engagement with the course of “English for Academic Purposes” under the blended teaching mode by employing questionnaires and semi-structured interviews for data collection. It was found that students’ engagement consists of three dimensions including cognitive, affective and behavioral; their engagement on the cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions are rank-ordered from high to low in terms of the strength; factors relating to students themselves, learning resources and settings, and classroom interpersonal relationship have a significant effect on their engagement. The above findings disclose the multi-faceted and interactive nature of ecological relationship between various factors, and could shed light on the application of blended foreign language teaching in China.
XU Ying , YUAN Jie , HUANG Mengjia , CHEN Jin . Investigating College Students’ English Learning Engagement Following the Blended Teaching Mode[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2025 , 25(1) : 84 -95 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2025.01.009
| [1] | Banerjee G. S. 2011. Blended environments: Learning effectiveness and student satisfaction at a small college in transition[J]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 15(1): 8-19. |
| [2] | Corbin J. & A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd edn.)[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. |
| [3] | Costello A. B. & J. W. Osborne. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis[J]. Practical Assessment 10(7): 1-9. |
| [4] | Fleer M., F. G. Rey & N. Veresov. 2017. Perezhivanie, Emotions and Subjectivity: Advancing Vygotsky’s Legacy[M]. Singapore: Springer. |
| [5] | Fredricks J. A., P. C. Blumenfeld & A. H. Paris. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence[J]. Review of Educational Research 74(1): 59-109. |
| [6] | Garrison D. R. & H. Kanuka. 2004. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education[J]. The Internet and Higher Education 7(2): 95-105. |
| [7] | Garrison D. R. & N. D. Vaughan. 2008. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principle and Guidelines [M]. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. |
| [8] | Green A. 1998. Verbal Protocol Analysis in Language Testing Research: A Handbook[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [9] | Grow G. 1991. Teaching learners to be self-directed[J]. Adult Education Quarterly 41(3): 125-149. |
| [10] | Huang B., K. F. Hew & C. K. Lo. 2019. Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped learning on undergraduate students’ behavioral and cognitive engagement[J]. Interactive Learning Environments 27(8): 1106-1126. |
| [11] | Lave J. & E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [12] | Phan T. S., G. McNeil & B. R. Robin. 2016. Students’ patterns of engagement and course performance in a massive open online course[J]. Computers & Education 95: 36-44. |
| [13] | Rasheed R. A., A. Kamsin & N. A. Abdullah. 2020. Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review[J]. Computers & Education 144: 1-17. |
| [14] | Rayn A. M. 2000. Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescent’s motivation, engagement, and achievement in school[J]. Educational Psychologist 35(2): 101-111. |
| [15] | Xie K., J. W. Vongkulluksn L. Lu, et al. 2020. A person-centered approach to examining high-school students’ motivation, engagement and academic performance[J]. Contemporary Educational Psychology 62: 1-13. |
| [16] | 陈静、陈吉颖、郭凯. 2021. 混合式学术英语写作课堂中的学习投入研究[J]. 外语界(1):28-36. |
| [17] | 陈颖芳、 马晓雷. 2018. 构建以核心素养为中心的大学英语知识体系——基于合法化语码理论的视角[J]. 外语界(3): 38-45. |
| [18] | 陈真真. 2019. 智能手机辅助外语课堂教学中的学习投入研究[J]. 外语电化教学(3):49-54. |
| [19] | 范玉梅、 龙在波. 2022. 自我决定理论视角下大学生基本心理需求与学术英语能动性投入关系研究[J]. 现代外语(3):406-417. |
| [20] | 管恩京、 张鹤方、冯超, 等. 2020. 混合式教学有效性的实证研究——以山东理工大学的68门多学科课程为例[J]. 现代教育技术(3):39-44. |
| [21] | 郭继东、 刘林. 2016. 外语学习投入的内涵、结构及研究视角[J]. 江西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(6):181-185. |
| [22] | 郭继东. 2018. 英语学习情感投入的构成及其对学习成绩的作用机制[J]. 现代外语(1): 55-65. |
| [23] | 胡杰辉、 胡加圣. 2020. 大学外语教育信息化70年的理论与范式演进[J]. 外语电化教学(1): 17-23. |
| [24] | 胡杰辉. 2021. 混合式外语教学的理论内涵与研究范式[J]. 外语界(4):2-10. |
| [25] | 贾非、赵彬竹、李志创. 2019. 混合学习与在线学习对学生投入度的影响——以学习环境为视角[J]. 复旦教育论坛(5): 55-61. |
| [26] | 马婧. 2020. 混合教学环境下大学生学习投入影响机制研究——教学行为的视角[J]. 中国远程教育(2): 57-67. |
| [27] | 马爽. 2018. 我国大学生“思辨缺席症”成因深层分析及对策——以大学英语教育为例[J]. 外国语文(1): 140-146. |
| [28] | 马武林、刁阳碧、王珏. 2021. 大学英语混合式一流课程建设探索与反思[J]. 外语电化教学(6): 94-102. |
| [29] | 马晓雷、 葛军、胡琼. 2021. 线上线下混合式外语教学的有效实践模式探究[J]. 外语界(4):19-26. |
| [30] | 任庆梅. 2018. 大学英语有效课堂环境构建及评价的影响机制[J]. 外语教学与研究(5): 703-714. |
| [31] | 沙景荣、看召草、李伟. 2020. 混合式教学中教师支持策略对大学生学习投入水平改善的实证研究[J]. 中国电化教育(8):127-133. |
| [32] | 涂冬波、史静寰、郭芳芳. 2013. 中国大学生学习性投入调查问卷的测量学研究[J]. 复旦教育论坛(1):55-62. |
| [33] | 吴凡、陈诗敏、赵泽宁. 2022. 大学生学习投入、学习时间及学习效果的比较研究——基于F省高校大学生线上线下学习经验调查[J]. 中国高教研究(10): 22-27. |
| [34] | 解筱杉、 朱祖林. 2012. 高校混合式教学质量影响因素分析[J]. 中国远程教育(10):9-14. |
| [35] | 杨雪飞. 2019. 基于SPOC的大学英语教学模式构建及影响因素研究[J]. 外国语文(2):146-154. |
| [36] | 张思、 刘清堂、雷诗捷, 等. 2017. 网络学习空间中学习者学习投入的研究——网络学习行为的大数据分析[J]. 中国电化教育(4):24-30. |
| [37] | 张屹、 郝琪、陈蓓蕾, 等. 2019. 智慧教室环境下大学生课堂学习投入度及影响因素研究——以“教育技术学研究方法课”为例[J]. 中国电化教育(1):106-115. |
| [38] | 周媛、 韩彦凤. 2018. 混合学习活动中学习者学习投入的研究[J]. 电化教育研究(11):99-105. |
| [39] | 邹菊梅、 胡梦荻、林如意, 等. 2022. 线上、线下及混合学习情感体验的特征分析与比较[J]. 现代教育技术(4):50-60. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
