You are here:

Factors Affecting Student Engagement in a Blended Learning Environment

, Gazi University, Turkey ; , Middle East Technical University, Turkey

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-76-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA


As college drop outs and dissatisfaction from the school among students on the rise, factors such as student engagement and technology that have potential to reverse this trend have been gaining attention in the research studies. Blended Learning Environments, a combination of online and face to face learning environments, have potential to increase student engagement with the help from technology. However designing such blended learning environments needs information to understand what factors impact student engagement. This study investigates how students’ demographic, motivational and prior ability factors impact student engagement in a blended learning course offered to pre-service computer teachers. Findings indicate that factors impacting student success and engagement in traditional learning environments did not have effect on student engagement in blended learning environment.


Cakir, H. & Delialioglu, O. (2009). Factors Affecting Student Engagement in a Blended Learning Environment. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2009--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2409-2414). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 25, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Astin, A.W. (1993). What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  2. Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Pickard, P. (2003). Using Blended Learning to Improve Student Success Rates in Learning to Program. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2/3), 165-178.
  3. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin, 3-7.
  4. Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  5. Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers& Education, 51(1), 474-483.
  6. Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
  7. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
  8. Hill, J.R., Wiley, D., Nelson, L.M., & Han, S. (2004). Exploring Research on Internet-Based Learning: From Infrastructure to Interactions. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (2nd Edition) (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  9. Kuh, G.D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17.
  10. Osguthorpe, R.T., & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
  11. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  12. Riordan, J.E., & Noyce, P.E. (2001). The Impact of Two Standards-Based Mathematics Curricula on Student Achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(4), 368-398.
  13. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  14. Walberg, H.J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 19-27.
  15. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).
  16. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology(25), 68-81.
  17. Wonacott, M.E. (2002). Blending face-to-face and distance learning methods in adult and career-technical education. Practice application brief No. 23. Columbus, OH.-2414 DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact