Comparing the effect of traditional and blended instructional approaches on the creativity, motivation, and learning of non-Iranian learners of Persian language

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 associate professor, Department of Education, Bu-Ali Sina University

2 Imam Khomeini International University - Department of Persian Language ِDidactics

3 Master of Educational technology

Abstract

Blended learning refers to the use of a combination of diverse educational materials (media and educational technology), and aims to appropriately blend new technologies with educational materials of the traditional classes. Blended instruction is an appropriate integration of face-to-face and online instruction (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Not only could this type of instruction cover the weak points of both face-to-face and online instruction, but also it could help reduce costs and save learning time (Bonk & Graham, 2004; Lily, Arthur & Stephen, 2014). The present research aimed to explore whether the type of instruction, i.e. traditional or blended, could significantly affect creativity, motivation and learning of non-Iranian learners of Persian. The definitions of the key terms of this study are as below.
Creativity: Until the last century, many believed that creativity was an intrinsic trait and some people were born with this ability. It has now been documented that within an appropriate environment, creativity can be fostered by applying certain principles and techniques to create new ways of thinking (Jalili, 2004). High achievement motivation, curiosity, care for order and arrangement, self-assertiveness, self-sufficiency, perseverance, discipline in work, independence, critical thinking, and intuitive thinking are among the characteristics which have been mentioned for creative people (Seif, 2009).
Motivation: Motivation is a very important and often the most important prerequisite for learning. It has a more defining role in learning than general intelligence (Rankin and Stuling, 2000). Factors affecting motivation include learner characteristics, quantitative and qualitative aspects of curriculum, teacher characteristics, the conditions and characteristics of the learning environment, learning activities and tasks, and other environmental factors (Kaveh, 2010). Language learners’ self-conscious and unconscious motivations stem from their needs. The relevance and significance of learning programs and tasks for the learners depends on the appropriateness and relevance of those programs and tasks to the learner needs, especially the prioritized needs (Irannejad Parizi, 2015).
Learning: In the realm of education, attention has been redirected from teaching toward learning. For optimal learning, a variety of tools and resources are available which are multiplying by the advancement of technology. It should be kept in mind that the success of a society is built on the abilities of individuals who are involved in lifelong learning (Yai & Tang, 2003; Schneberg & Johnson, 2004).
Blended instruction: One of the revolutions in the field of education relates to the modern information and communications technology that added remote communication and exchange of information to face-to-face instruction system. Blended instruction is a deliberate combination of face-to-face and virtual instruction. The basic principle of this approach is to properly integrate face-to-face verbal interactions with virtual written communications in a way that an exploratory learning experience is realized, in line with the instructional objectives (Soma & Reynold, 2014). Blended instruction involves adopting new modes of thinking in course designs which aims to adapt traditional values and activities to technological affordances and expectations. Blended approach to learning brings together a combination of face-to-face and online components and involves blending of instructional methods, media, experiences, informational and educational components, synchronous and asynchronous learning, and self-paced and self-directed learning (Baglien, 2009).
In 2011, Acelajado reported that, in comparison to traditional face-to-face instruction, blended instruction led to better improvements in all the topics involved. A survey of the participants’ views showed that using diverse instructional methods improved the participants’ learning, attitude, confidence, and motivation.
Fletcher, Lynn, Fouches, and Barnes (2007) found that in teaching vocabulary, blending text with visual images and audio led to more realistic and precise definitions of the word meanings by participants; improved their short-term and visual memory; enhanced the learning, memorization, and recall of words in people with learning disabilities; and improved visual imagination of the participants.
In a study entitled ‘Designing and implementing a blended learning system for students of rehabilitation majors’, Seyedi and Yaghoubi (2012) found that in comparison to face-to-face and electronic methods, blended learning methods which integrated student-centered learning to face-to-face instruction and employed potent resources such as standard instructional materials could improve the quality of instruction more substantially.
In general, the current researcher could not locate any studies which explored the effect of blended instruction on the acquisition of Persian language by non-Iranian learners, and this study aimed to fill this gap. This study was an applied research which adopted quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design with a control and an experimental group. The study sample consisted of 40 non-Iranian learners of Persian language who studied at the International Dehkhoda Farsi teaching center in Tehran University in the academic year 2013-2014. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups. The control and experimental groups received traditional and blended instruction respectively. For data collection, three questionnaires were used which included Torrance Creativity Questionnaire, Hermann's Achievement Motivation Questionnaire, and a Learning Questionnaire.
The results of the study showed that in comparison to traditional instruction, blended instruction exerted a more significant effect on the creativity of non-Iranian learners of Persian language. It can be argued that blended instruction could affect the reproduction of thoughts, promote learners’ intellectual growth, and lead to dynamism in the instruction of Persian language. In developing blended Persian language instruction programs, due consideration should be given to the characteristics of Persian-language learners. Blended instruction does not involve adopting multiple approaches to learning. It aims at rebuilding classroom transactions, improving class participation, and ensuring broad access to web-based learning opportunities. In turn, abundant learning opportunities promote a goal-directed participatory and exploratory learning culture. Finally, instructors could prevent useless resources which are used in online-only language classes and are less efficient for some skills such as spoken skills, and instead use those resources for learning activities which directly help learners to achieve learning objectives.
 

Keywords


 
Abdinejad, T. (2009). Investigating the effectiveness of field-based chemical kinetics training on the learning of secondary school students (Master’s thesis). Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran [In Persian]
.Acelajado, M. J. (2011). Blended learning: a strategy for improving the mathematics achievement of students in a bridging program. Electronic Journal of Mathematics & Technology5 (3), 342-351.
Ahmadi, Gh., & Nokhostinrouhi, N. (2014). Investigation of the differentiation of blended learning with electronical learning and traditional learning (face to face) in teaching mathemats. Journal of School Psychology3(2), 7-26 [in Persian].
Akbas, A., & Kan, A. (2007). Affective factors that influence chemistry     achievement (motivation and anxiety) and the power of these factors to predict chemistry achievement-II, Journal of Turkish Science Education4 (1), 10-19.
Altman, Y. (2009). From human resources to human beings: managing people at work, Human Resource Management International Digest17 (7), 3-4.
Baglien, V. G. (2009). Implementation of blended instruction: A case study of secondary Family and Consumer Sciences (PhD thesis). Lowa State University, Iowa, USA.
Baron, R. (2003). Giftedness according the theory of successful intelligence. In N. Colonel & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 88-99). Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2004). Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco,CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Boyle, E. A., Duffy T., & Dunleavy, K. (2003). Learning styles and           academic outcome: the validity and utility of Vermont’s inventory of learning styles in a British higher education setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology73, 267-390.
Cheraghcheshm, A. (2007). An investigation into influence of creativity-based teaching methods on students' education and learning. Bi-quarterly Journal of Islamic Education3(5), 7-36 [In Persian].
Chien, C. Y., & Hui, A. N. N. (2010). Creativity in early childhood education: Teachers’ perceptions in three Chinese societies. Thinking Skills and Creativity5(2), 49–60.
Doig, A., & Hogg, S. (2013). Engaging distance and blended learners online. In C. Wankel & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in E-learning Environments: Web 2.0 and Blended Learning Technologies (Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education) (Vol. 6, pp. 229 –260). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research and applications. Language           Learning53(1), 3-32.
Ebrahimighavam, S., & Khaghanizadeh, M. (2008). The role of motivation in learning. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences1(1), 1-9. [In Persian]
Eisenberg, M. B., & Johnson, D. (2004). Learning and teaching information: technology computer skills in context. In J. J. Hirschbuhl, & D. Bishop (Eds.), Annual Editions: Computers in Education (pp. 118-123). New York: McGraw-Hill / Dushkin Education.
Eskandari, S. (2013). Exploring the relationship between emotional intelligence and creativity and academic achievement in students of vocational schools (Master’s thesis). Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Feist, J., & Feist, J. G (2008). Theories of Personality (7nd ed.), USA: McGraw−Hill Companies.Fleck, J. (2012). Blended learning and learning communities: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Development, 31(4), 398-411.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: from identification to intervention. New York: Guilford.Ford, N, Wood, F., & Walsh, C. (1994). Cognitive styles and online searching. Online and CD-ROM Review18 (2), 79-86.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco (CA): Jossey- Bass.Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4nd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hamidinovin, Z. (2012). Examining a blended model for predicting the decision to continue e-learning: The case of Tehran’s smart schools’ students (Master’s thesis). Institute of Higher Education Mehr Alborz, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
Heidari, R. (2013). The relationship between the emotional intelligence and creativity and the happiness of boarding high school students in Fars province (Master’s thesis). Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran. [In Persian]
Harris, P., Connolly, J., & Feeney, L. (2009). Blended learning: overview and recommendations for successful implementation. Industrial and          Commercial Training41 (3), 155-163.
Irannejad Parizi, M. (2015). Foundations of management (in information age): Concepts, theories, and applications. Tehran: Modiran Publication [In Persian].
Jalili, M. (2004). Exploring the relationship between job satisfaction and creativity in educational managers (Master’s thesis). Institute for Management and Planning Studies, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
Karimi, A. (2004). Instruction discourages creativity. Management in Education, 3(2), 57-61. [In Persian]Kaveh, M. H. (2010). Motivation and learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 1(1), 23-29 [In Persian].
Khazaie, S., Zarei, Gh., Ketabi, S., & Ahmadpour Kasegari, Z. (2014). An investigation into the effect of content representation and gender on learners' short-term memory: a study of cell-phone assisted vocabulary learning. Journal of Language Reseearch (Zabanpazhuhi). 6(11), 43-64. [In Persian]
Lily, W., Arthur, T., & Stephen, B. (2014). A framework for investigating blended learning effectiveness. Education + Training56)2/3), 233-251.Lopez, A. R., & Muñoz, D. F. (2015). Increasing practical lessons and inclusion of applied examples to motivate university students  during programming courses. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 552 – 564.
Mosalanejad, L. (2010). Designing a blended learning program based on critical thinking and comparing its psychological effects with traditional learning (PhD thesis). Payam-e Noor University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
Osguthorpe R. T., & Graham C. R. (2003). Blended learning system: definitions and directions. QRDE,4(3), 227-234.
Palaniappan, A. K. (2007). Academic achievement of groups formed based on creativity and intelligence. In A. Yahya (Ed.), Reviewed Research Papers selected for publication and presentation at the 13th International Conference on Thinking (pp. 1650-3740), Norrkoping, Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press. [Online]: <http://repository.um.edu.my/49482/>
Prinsloo, P., & Rooyen, A. A. (2007) Exploring a blended learning  approach to improving student success in the teaching of second year accounting. Meditari Accountancy Research, 15 (1), 51- 69.
Raghebian, R. (2013). Improving learners’ reading comprehension and reading motivation through a program developed based on survey of learner opinions, triadic reading, and motivational strategies (Master’s thesis). Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
Re’isdana, F. (2003). Educational technology as a ground for committed learning. In M. Rezaee (Ed.),Proceedings of the Conference on Engineering Education Reform (pp. 77-100) Tehran: Ministry of Education. [In Persian]
Rankin, S. H., & Stallings, K. D. (2000). Patient education: principles & practices (4nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.Redman, B. K. (1997). The Practice of Patient Education (8th ed). USA: Mosby.
Saeedpur, M., & Tabasi, Z. (2010). Blended instruction: Implementation of a new strategy in electronic instruction. Horizons of Medical Education Development, 4(1), 55-63. [In Persian]Seif, A. (2003).Educational psychology, learning and teaching psychology (8nd ed). Tehran: Agah [In Persian].
Seif, A. (2009). Modern Educational Psychology. Tehran: Loran [In Persian].
Seyedi, M., & Yaghoubi, Z. (2012). Designing and implementing blended learning in the field of rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 3(2), 42-50. [In Persian]
Shishkovskaya, J. V., & Sokolova E. Y. (2015). Integration of Web 2.0 technologies into the process of students’ self-directed English learning.  Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences6(2), 541-546.
Srivastava S., Childers M. E., Baek J. H., Strong C. M., Hill S. J., Warsett, K. S., Wang P. W., Akiskal H. S., Akiskal K. K., & Ketter, T. A. (2010). Toward interaction of affective and cognitive contributors to creativity in bipolar disorders: A controlled study. J. Affect. Disord125, 27–34.
Slotkin, M., Durie, C., & Eisenberg, J. (2012)­. The benefits of short‐term study abroad as a blended learning experience. Journal of International Education in Business5 (2), 163-173.Smith, N. V. (2013). Face-to-face vs. blended learning: effects on secondary students’perceptions and performance. Procedia - Social    and Behavioral Sciences, 89, 79-83.
Soma, P., & Reynold, J. (2014). The pains and gains of blended learning social constructivist perspectives. Education + Training56(4), 254 - 270.
Torrence, D. (1993). Motivating Trainees to Learn. Training & Development, 47 (3): 55-59.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H.­ J. (2010). What influences Learning? A Content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research84 (1), 30-43.
Weber, E. (1999). A dictionary of scientists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yee, S. & Tang, F. (2003). Challenge and support: the dynamics of  student teachers’ professional learning in the field experience. Teaching and Teacher Education19, 483-498.
Zoogah, D. B., & Zoogah, R. B. (2014). Experimenting with resource strategy: experimental analysis and strategic human resources management research in Africa. In D. B. Zoogah (Ed.), Advancing Research Methodology in the African Context: Techniques, Methods, and Designs (Research Methodology in Strategy and Management) (pp. 21-53), United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.