Teachers of urban higher education institutions often explore new methods of teaching using innovative techno-pedagogical approaches. This study reports on postgraduate students’ perceptions of the blended learning mode of delivery, co-taught by two lecturers concurrently during the “Qualitative Research” elective course offered for the Master of Educational Leadership program, in a reputed Malaysian university. A qualitative action research methodology was adopted for this study with students’ comments captured through Padlet. Results indicate that students have very positive perceptions of their experiences gained through blended learning and co-lecturing. The findings of this action research study provide evidence of the meaningful and personalized learning experiences reported by students, gained through the collaborative blended mode of delivery. The results also provide more thoughtful reflections for teachers to draw on students’ feedback and possibly adapt their teaching practices to better accommodate students learning needs.
AndersonP. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Ideas, technologies and implications for education (Reviewed by HepworthM.KellyB.MetcalfeR.PhippsL.). JISC Technology and Standards Watch.
2.
BleicherP. (2006). Web 2.0 revolution: Power to the people. Actmagazine.com; Applied Clinical Trials.
3.
BrookeE. (2015). Four keys to success using blended learning implementation models. Lexia Learning.
4.
BrownB.DresslerR.EatonS. E.JacobsenM. (2015). Practicing what we teach: Using action research to learn about teaching action research. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 16(3), 61–78.
5.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2000). Action research. Research Methods in Education, 5, 226–244.
6.
ConoleG. P.AlevizouP. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education (A report commissioned by the higher education academy). Higher Education Academy.
7.
CronjéJ. C. (2009). Qualitative assessment across language barriers: An action research study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 69–85.
8.
Docebo. (2016). eLearning market trends and forecast 2017–2021.
9.
DzakiriaH.DonM. S.RahmanH. A. (2013). Action research on blended learning transformative potential in higher education —Learners’ perspectives. Business and Management Research, 1(2), 125–134.
10.
DziubanC. D.PiccianoA. G.GrahamC. R.MoskalP. D. (2015). Conducting research in online and blended learning environments: New pedagogical frontiers. Routledge; Taylor & Francis.
11.
Foreman-PeckL.MurrayJ. (2008). Action research and policy. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(Suppl. 1), 145–163.
12.
GrahamC. R.HenrieC. R.GibbonsA. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In PiccianoA. G.DziubanC. D.GrahamC. R. (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (pp. 13–33). Routledge.
13.
HaliliS. H.ZainuddinZ. (2015). Flipping the classroom: What we know and what we don’t. The Online Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 3(1), 28–35.
HaoY. (2016). Middle school students’ flipped learning readiness in foreign language classrooms: Exploring its relationship with personal characteristics and individual circumstances. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 295–303.
16.
Hoic-BozicN.DlabM. H.MornarV. (2016). Recommender system and Web 2.0 tools to enhance a blended learning model. IEEE Transactions on Education, 59(1), 39–44.
17.
JangH.KimE. J.ReeveJ. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38.
18.
JangS. J. (2008). Innovations in science teacher education: Effects of integrating technology and team-teaching strategies. Computers & Education, 51(2), 646–659.
19.
JohnsonL.Adams BeckerS.CumminsM.EstradaV.FreemanA.HallC. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. The New Media Consortium.
20.
KemmisS.McTaggartR. (2000). Participatory action research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567–606). SAGE.
21.
KhodabandelouR.AliW. Z.JalilH. A.DaudS. M. (2017). Presence and perceived learning in different higher education blended learning environments. In I. R. Management Association (Ed.), Blended learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 615–627). IGI Global.
22.
KostkaR. B.LockwoodR. B. (2015). What’s on the internet for flipping English language instruction?The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 19, 1–12.
23.
LimC. P.WangL. (2017). Blended learning for quality higher education: Selected case studies on implementation from Asia-Pacific. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
24.
MavropaliasT.AnastasiouD. (2016). What does the Greek model of parallel support have to say about co-teaching?Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 224–233.
25.
McDonaldP. L. (2012). Adult learners and blended learning: A phenomenographic study of variation in adult learners’ experiences of blended learning in higher education [Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University].
MillerK. K. (2016). Closing the achievement gap in mathematics and science education: Using critical discourses, mathematics and science agency, and hybrid third spaces to teach urban students. Education and Urban Society, 48(3), 288–294.
28.
Ministry of Education. (2015). Malaysia education blueprint 2015–2025 (higher education).
29.
NierergartenG. (2013). Supporting co-teaching teams in high schools: Twenty research-based practices. American Secondary Education, 42(1), 73–83.
30.
NomanM.HashimR. A.Shaik-AbdullahS. (2017). Principal’s coalition building and personal traits brings success to a struggling school in Malaysia. The Qualitative Report, 22(10), 2652–2672. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss10/9
31.
O’FlahertyJ.PhillipsC. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.
32.
OliverK.StallingsD. (2014). Preparing teachers for emerging blended learning environments. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 57–81.
33.
O’ReillyT. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. International Journal of Digital Economics, 65, 17–37.
34.
PoonJ. (2014). A cross-country comparison on the use of blended learning in property education. Property Management, 32(2), 154–175.
35.
RuckK. A. (2012). A descriptive study of pedagogical characteristics of online versus face-to-face teaching methods in a secondary blended learning environment [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania].
36.
SharrattL.PlancheB. (2016.). Leading collaborative learning: Empowering excellence. Corwin Press.
37.
ShiehR. S. (2012). The impact of technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) implementation on student learning and teachers’ teaching in a high school context. Computers & Education, 59(2), 206–214.
38.
SimõesL.GouveiaL. B. (2011). Social technology appropriation in higher education. Romanian Journal of Social Informatics8, 21–34.
SunJ. C.-Y.WuY.-T. (2016). Analysis of learning achievement and teacher–student interactions in flipped and conventional classrooms. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17, 79–99.
41.
SzetoE.ChengA. Y. (2016). Towards a framework of interactions in a blended synchronous learning environment: What effects are there on students’ social presence experience?Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 487–503.
42.
Van OordtM. L.Van OordtT.du ToitP. (2014). Are two teachers better than one?Mediterranean Accountancy Research, 22(2), 165–185.
43.
WangS.HeffernanN. (2010). Ethical issues in computer-assisted language learning: Perceptions of teachers and learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 796–813.
44.
WardenC. A.StanworthJ. O.RenJ. B.WardenA. R. (2013). Synchronous learning best practices: An action research study. Computers & Education, 63, 197–207.
45.
ZainuddinZ.HaliliS. H. (2016). Flipped classroom research and trends from different fields of study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 313–340.
