The emergence of 21st-century skills convinced educational institutions in modifying teaching styles, which lead to the introduction of blended, flipped, and personalized learning. Studies demonstrated present-day best practices, but none provided a practical assessment procedure. Thus, this study aimed to develop a tool in evaluating learning modules—the 21st-century e-Learning Module Assessment Tool. Identification of components for the instrument revealed the interrelating nature of blended, flipped, and personalized learning; hence, it considered nine components of 21st-century teaching instead of assessing the teaching styles separately. Content validity is established through expert evaluation while reliability is established through pilot testing. 21st-Century e-Learning Module Assessment Tool uses a 5-point scale to rate learning modules based on its compliance to the nine components of 21st-century teaching. The developed assessment tool is recommended to be used as standard in evaluating existing learning modules and a guide for future 21st-century learning modules.
AusterC. J. (2016).
Blended learning as a potentially winning combination of face-to-face and online learning: An exploratory study. Teaching Sociology,
44(1), 39–48.
2.
BishopJ. L.VerlegerM. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research.
American Society for Engineering Education.
3.
BodellS.HookA. (2014).
Developing online professional networks for undergraduate occupational therapy students: An evaluation of an extracurricular facilitated blended learning package.British Journal of Occupational Therapy,
77(6), 320–323.
4.
BoyerA. (2013). The flipped classroom. TLN Journal, 20(1), 28–29.
ChenC. M.LeeH. M.ChenY. H. (2005).
Personalised e-learning system using item response theory. Computers & Education,
44(3), 237–255.
7.
ChildressS.BensonS. (2014).
Personalised learning for every student every day. Phi Delta Kappan,
95(8), 33–38.
8.
ChoK. C.ShinG. (2014).
Operational effectiveness of blended e-learning program for nursing research ethics. Nursing Ethics,
21(4), 484–495.
9.
CorreaM. (2015).
Flipping the foreign language classroom and critical pedagogies: A (new) old trend. Higher Education for the Future,
2(2), 114–125.
10.
CottleN. R.GloverR. J. (2011).
Teaching human development: A case for blended learning. Teaching of Psychology,
38(3), 205–208.
11.
CourcierI. (2007).
Teachers’ perceptions of personalised learning. Evaluation & Research in Education,
20(2), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.2167/eri405.0
12.
DonnellyR. (2006).
Blended problem‐based learning for teacher education: Lessons learnt. Learning, Media and Technology,
31(2), 93–116.
13.
ForseyM.LowM.GlanceD. (2013).
Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a practice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology,
19, 471–485.
14.
FultonK. P. (2012).
10 reasons to flip. Phi Delta Kappan,
94(2), 20–24.
15.
GarnA. C.JollyJ. L. (2013).
High ability students’ voice on learning motivation. Journal of Advanced Academics,
25(1), 7–24.
16.
GrahamC. (2004). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. Local Designs, 2,3–18.
17.
HallA. A.DuFreneD. D. (2015).
Best practices for launching a flipped classroom. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,
79(2), 234–242.
18.
HamdanN.McKnightP.McKnightK.ArfstromK. (2013). A white paper based on the literature review titled a review of flipped learning. Flipped Learning Network/Pearson/George Mason University.
HodgesT. S.WeberN. D. (2015).
Making heads or tails of classroom flipping. Kappa Delta Pi Record,
51(2), 57–63.
21.
HughesG. (2007).
Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teaching in Higher Education,
12(3), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701278690
22.
IkeE.OkechukwuI. B. (2015).
Effective learning systems through blended teaching modules in adult secondary education systems in developing nations: Need for partnership. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education,
21(1), 18–30.
23.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (p. 145). The MIT Press.
KucirkovaN.MesserD.SheehyK. (2014).
Reading personalised books with preschool children enhances their word acquisition. First Language,
34(3), 227–243.
27.
KuoY. C.BellandB. R.SchroderK. E.WalkerA. E. (2014).
K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments. Distance Education,
35(3), 360–381.
28.
LeeC. H.YehD.KungR. J.HsuC. S. (2007).
The influences of learning portfolios and attitudes on learning effects in blended e-learning for mathematics. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
37(4), 331–350.
29.
LoveB.HodgeA.GrandgenettN.SwiftA. W. (2014).
Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,
45(3), 317–324.
30.
McEvoyC. S.CantoreK. M.DenlingerL. N.SchleichM. A.StevensN. M.SwavelyS. C.NovickM. B. (2014).
Use of medical students in a flipped classroom programme in nutrition education for fourth-grade school students. Health Education Journal, 75(1), 38–46.
31.
MonteiroE.MorrisonK. (2014).
Challenges for collaborative blended learning in undergraduate students. Educational Research and Evaluation,
20(7–8), 564–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2014.997126
32.
MoranC. M.YoungC. A. (2015).
Questions to consider before flipping. Phi Delta Kappan,
97(2), 42–46.
O’DonnellE.SharpM.WadeV. (2015).
A review of personalised e-learning: Towards supporting learner diversity. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies,
13(1), 22–47.
35.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011a). Framework for 21st century learning.
36.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011b). Learning for the 21st Century.
37.
Peters, M. A. (2009). Personalization, Personalized Learning and the Reform of Social Policy: the prospect of molecular governance in the digitized society. Policy Futures in Education, 7(6), 615–627.
38.
PetersonD. J. (2016).
The flipped classroom improves student achievement and course satisfaction in a statistics course: A quasi-experimental study. Teaching of Psychology,
43(1), 10–15.
39.
RoccettiM.SalomoniP.BonfigliM. E. (2001).
A design for a simulation-based multimedia learning environment. Simulation,
76(4), 214–221.
40.
SayeskiK. L.Hamilton-JonesB.OhS. (2015).
The efficacy of IRIS STAR legacy modules under different instructional conditions. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children,
38(4), 291–305.
41.
SchraderP. G.LawlessK. A. (2011).
Research on immersive environments and 21st century skills: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
44(4), 385–390.
42.
SimsD. E.BurkeC. S.MetcalfD. S.SalasE. (2008).
Research-based guidelines for designing blended learning. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications,
16(1), 23–29.
43.
Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology-Saddle Brook Then Englewood Cliffs NJ-, 43(6), 51–54.
44.
SivakumarN.PraveenaR.SaranyaS. (2015).
Improving content personalisation through ant optimisation in E-learning. Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences,
9, 581–587.
45.
SongY.WongL. H.LooiC. K. (2012).
Fostering personalised learning in science inquiry supported by mobile technologies. Educational Technology Research and Development,
60(4), 679–701.
46.
SteedA. (2012). The flipped classroom. Hassocks: Economics, Business and Enterprise Association.
47.
SteinerC. M.NussbaumerA.AlbertD. (2009).
Supporting self-regulated personalised learning through competence-based knowledge space theory. Policy Futures in Education,
7(6), 645–661.
48.
ThyagharajanK. K.NayakR. (2007).
Adaptive content creation for personalised e-learning using web services. Journal of Applied Sciences Research,
3(9), 828–836.
49.
TuckerB. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next,
12, 82–83.
50.
VelayuthamS.AldridgeJ.FraserB. (2011).
Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self‐regulation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education,
33(15), 2159–2179. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.541529
51.
WelkerJ.BerardinoL. (2005).
Blended learning: Understanding the middle ground between traditional classroom and fully online instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
34(1), 33–55.
