Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006 www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme Heba EL-Deghaidy *, Ahmed Nouby Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of Education, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt Received 2 April 2007; received in revised form 4 October 2007; accepted 7 October 2007

Abstract This paper describes the results and implications of a study into the effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach (BeLCA) on Pre-Service Teacher’s (PST) achievement, attitudes towards e-learning and cooperativeness. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used with participants of the study. Twenty-six science PSTs, enrolled in an Egyptian university, represented the study’s experiential and control groups. Pre and post-tools were administered to participants in the two groups in a quasiexperimental design. Instruments to measure dependent variables of the study were developed by the authors in light of relevant previous studies. The findings suggest that PSTs in the experimental group have higher achievement levels in their post-overall-coursetest, ‘comprehensive-score’, and attitudes towards e-learning environments compared to those of the control group. The specific design of the course may be responsible for these changes. Future implications and suggestions for teacher educational programmes are presented. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Post-secondary education; Media in education; Cooperative-learning; Country-specific development; Pedagogical issues

1. Introduction Technology is not new to education as contemporary computer technologies, such as e-learning, allow new types of teaching and learning experiences to flourish. Research from independent research companies show that the corporate education market has spent 16% in year 2000 on e-learning initiatives and 24% in year 2001 with expected raise in years to follow (Bielawski & Metcalf, 2005). Such expenditure acknowledges the advantages of e-learning experiences. These experiences rely mainly on student-centred approaches where learners are active and positive as they learn from direct and authentic experiences and teachers’ roles change dramatically to facilitators and guides. The importance of e-learning to PSTs is a future work demand. Prospect teachers are expected to have the necessary competencies to use technology adequately in class integrating it into various subject areas. *

Corresponding author. Tel.: +20 124403003. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. EL-Deghaidy).

0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.001

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

989

This is a demand made by the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (AETS) and Society for Information Technology (IT) and Teacher Education (SITE) (Bell, 2001). International projects in a developing country such as Egypt, funded by the USAID, emphasised the importance of training teachers to incorporate technology in their lesson plans and create online networks allowing teachers to exchange lesson plan ideas and to access information on general IT use (Warschauer, 2004). National reform projects by the Egyptian Ministry of Education and Higher Education emphasised including technology in teaching, designing online courses, training staff on content development, e-learning management, e-learning services and e-learning tools (ICTP, 2007). To support this view, national initiatives have provided schools with access to computer facilities and electronic networking, software and educational resources, and staff development (Ismail, 2001). However, technology, from another point of view, is an opportunity to strengthen cooperative learning at all stages of education, including higher education (Abdelmeneim, Said, Hassan, & Malek, 2000). From the perspective of the authors of this study, PSTs need a first hand experience, as utilized in this study, before they can incorporate technology in their future teaching and become cooperative learners. 2. Review of the literature 2.1. Blended e-learning (BeL) The term blended learning is used to describe a learning situation that combines several delivery methods with the goal of providing the most efficient and effective instruction experience by such combination (Harriman, 2004; Williams, 2003). The blend could be between any form of instructional technology (videotape, CD-ROM, Web-based training, films) with face-to-face (F2F) instructor-led training (Driscoll, 2002; JoyMatthews, Megginson, & Surtees, 2004). Singh (2003) described this type of blend by introducing the term ‘blended e-learning’. From a course design perspective, a blended course can lie anywhere between the continuum anchored at opposite ends by fully face-to-face and fully online learning environments (Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Kerres and De Witt (2003) offer a 3C-conceptual framework for blended learning designers. It is to consider the ‘content’ of learning materials, the ‘communication’ between learners and tutors and between learners and their peers, and the ‘construction’ of the learners’ sense of place and direction within the activities that denote the learning landscape. From a teacher’s perspective, a blended e-learning approach requires new pedagogic skills in order that the learner gains the most from the presented course. Martyn (2003) suggested that a successful blended e-learning environment consists of an initial F2F meeting, weekly online assessments and synchronous chat, asynchronous discussions, e-mail, and a final F2F meeting with a proctored final examination. Assuming such an environment results in students having more control over their learning (Hooper, 1992; Saunders & Klemming, 2003); increases social competencies (AzTEA, 2005); improves student morale and overall satisfaction (Byers, 2001); enhances information skills acquisition and student achievement (Kendall, 2001); respects differences in learning style and pace (Piskurich, 2004) and fosters communication and closeness among students and tutors (Joliffe, Ritter, & Stevens, 2001). 2.2. Cooperative learning (CL) Cooperative learning was introduced in the field of education by the work of Johnson and Johnson (Johnson & Johnson, 1992). They defined cooperative learning as the pedagogical use of small groups of two or more students who work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. This could be achieved through assigning students to one of the following four types of CL: formal, informal, cooperative base groups, and academic controversy (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). Members assigned to the different types are expected to meet F2F. This helps provide one another with efficient and effective help and assistance. It is also a chance to exchange information or materials, discuss the concepts and strategies being learned, decide how to solve problems, and provide for the necessary support and encouragement (Johnson & Johnson, 1996). F2F interaction will not only avoid ambiguity and promote richness in communication, but also help build personal relationships (Graves & Graves, 1985).

990

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

There are three general theoretical perspectives that have guided research on cooperation: cognitive-developmental, behavioural, and social-interdependence (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998a; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998b). Cognitive-developmental perspective is based on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. Piagetian perspectives suggest that when individuals work together, socio-cognitive conflict occurs and creates cognitive dis-equlibrium that stimulates perspective-taking ability and cognitive development. Vygotsky’s theories present knowledge as a societal product. The behavioural learning theory is based on the work of various physiologists that focuses on the impact of group reinforces and rewards on learning assuming that students will work hard on tasks for which they secure a reward of some sort. The social-interdependence-theory views cooperation as resulting from positive interdependence among individuals’ goals. Positive interdependence (cooperation) results in promotive interaction, as individuals encourage and support each other’s efforts to learn. This can be established through: (a) mutual goals, (b) joint rewards, (c) shared resources, (d) complementary roles, (e) divided tasks, and (f) group identity. 2.3. Blended e-learning cooperative approach (BeLCA) Due to the educational benefits of blended e-learning, stated above, in addition to its economic benefits (Joy-Matthews et al., 2004; Kruse, 2004), the predominate assumption that computer-supported learning is based on a single-learner changed to a cooperative-learning based (Johnson & Johnson, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 2002). The approach to blending asynchronous and F2F activities with the students working in cooperation during the learning process and pair assignments, as described in this study, is called ‘Blended e-Learning Cooperative Approach’ (BeLCA). BeLCA’s theoretical framework is based on an eclectic view of theories underpinning cooperative learning. Three types of interaction: social, content and teacher are integrated in the BeLCA (Fig. 1). The first type of interaction is with the teacher who facilitates active learning and F2F interaction providing for a social environment. Nevertheless, teachers design and manage learning sequences and select the appropriate media before interacting with students. The second type of interaction is with ‘content’. This relates to cognitive interaction with the concepts and skills presented in course modules. Social interaction, which represents the third type, is defined as the ability of learners to perceive themselves as a community that supports positive interdependent. Such interaction can happen throughout the learning process, as they shared resources and when accomplishing cooperative assignments. The vital role of the human dimension of interactivity in learning is stressed by previous research (Mortera-Gutierrez & Murphy, 2000; Muirhead, 2000). Constructing meaning gradually emerges through the interaction (social-discourse) that is distributed among those who are constructing shared knowledge as student-to-student responses are likely to be at a higher cognitive level (Aviv, 2000).

Social interaction

Social discourse

Content interaction

BeLCA Course design & F2F

Peer tutoring

Teacher interaction

Fig. 1. Types of interaction in a BeLCA.

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

991

3. Context of the study This study was carried out in an Egyptian context with participants from a pre-service teaching programme at the School of Education at a small urban governmental university, namely Suez Canal University. The official language of teaching is Arabic. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a blended elearning cooperative approach to deliver a science teaching methods course in comparison to delivering the same course content by the same tutor in the form of F2F lectures. The science teaching methods course is a 4-hour ‘class’ throughout a 14 week term. The course emphasises the fundamentals of instructional skills and teacher competencies in teaching science to preparatory pupils (age range 10–13). Topics covered by the course exposed PSTs to a range of conventional and contemporary teaching strategies. In addition, the nature of science (NOS), science process skills and assessment techniques were also covered. As part of the programme, PSTs had access to actual classroom-teaching-experiences through weekly teaching-practicum. The course is organised into the following five interrelated modules (Appendix 1): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Nature of science (NOS). General objectives of science teaching. Conventional science teaching methods. Contemporary science teaching methods. Assessing pupils’ learning.

4. Methods The following sections deal with the experimental design, participants, instruments and procedure. 4.1. Experimental design The experimental design utilised for the purpose of the study is a pre-test/post-test control group design, where participants are randomly assigned to the groups. According to Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996), this experimental design does not suffer from potential internal validity problems and only suffers from one source of potential external validity, that is, from a possible interaction between pre-testing and experimental treatments. To ensure equivalence between participants of the two groups the objectives, instructional content, cooperative assignments were the same, in addition to the tutor. The main variation was in the method of course delivery. Using this approach allowed to ‘control’ for differences between the two groups. Post-test changes in the experimental group, this is case, could be attributed to the experimental treatment. The study set out to investigate the possible impact the approach of delivering the science teaching methods course may have on PSTs’ achievement-level, attitudes toward e-learning environments and cooperativeness by answering the following research questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

What What What What

is the effectiveness of a BeLCA on PSTs’ achievement levels in a science teaching methods course? is the effectiveness of a BeLCA on PSTs’ attitudes towards this type of learning approach? is the effectiveness of a BeLCA on PSTs’ attitudes towards cooperativeness? are PSTs’ views on implementing a BeLCA approach?

The predetermined probability level adopted for hypotheses testing was 0.05. This level was set as the previous literature, in other contexts than Egypt, revealed that blended learning has a positive effect on student’s learning and attitudes. A probability level of 0.01 was not selected due to the innovative teaching approach utilised, as this study is one of the first examples of e-learning to be available at the selected university in a teacher education programme. Participants were PSTs in a 4-year undergraduate teacher education programme in Egypt. They were 26 science PSTs, enrolled in year three, with an overwhelmingly female majority (24 females and 2 males). They

992

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

represented two speciality areas, categorised by the system in Egypt: Chemistry and Physics (14 students), representing the study’s experimental group and Biology (12 students), representing the control group. 4.2. Instruments This study employed a mixed-method design involving both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies (Greene & Caracelli, 1997). To answer the research questions, four instruments, administered in Arabic, were developed by the authors of this study: an achievement test; e-learning attitude scale; cooperativeness-scale and end of course open questions. The first three instruments represent the dependent variables of the study, while the independent variable was blended e-learning vs. F2F instructional approach. In order to develop the study’s instruments, relevant existing instruments and literature were reviewed. Validity of the instruments was determined by Content-Related Validity. In general, the content-related evidence demonstrates the degree to which the items on an instrument are representative of a domain or universe of content. To establish content validity for this study’s instruments a panel of professors from the School of Education reviewed each item to ensure constructing an instrument that reflected the domains of interest. Suggestions for modifications on some of the items and scaling were provided by the panel. This included rephrasing items and deleting others that seemed repetitive. After carrying out the necessary modifications, the panel reported that the instruments were appropriate for the study and that the language was clear. All instruments, except the open-ended questions, were piloted with a group of twenty PSTs, other than those included in the study to ensure reliability. The pilot group represented a female majority with similar specialities to the PSTs included in the original study. A female majority at the university included in this study is commonly found for those willing to become science teachers. Two statistical methods were used to determine reliability via SPSS (version 10.0 for Windows): first, was an internal consistency approach by calculating the value of alpha reliability co-efficient. Results were a = 0.7195, 0.7837 and 0.8914, respectfully for the three instruments’ total scores. Second, was a test-retest method with a three week gap. A coefficient of stability of the instruments was calculated using Spearman correlation co-efficient formula. Items in the three instruments had positive correlations r = 0.76, 0.81 and 0.87 respectively, indicating the reliability of these instruments. Later, the instruments were administered to PSTs in the original study representing the two groups, experimental and control. Once at the beginning of the teaching methods course, taught by the lead author of this study, as pre-tests and then re-administered at the end of the term as post-tests. 4.2.1. Achievement test Analysis based on sub-scores gained through pair cooperative assignments during the process and a final course test were taken into consideration to evaluate students’ achievement levels. Pre/post-module and overall course test-questions for those in the experimental group were taken from the course test-bank. A variety of formats such as true/false, multiple choice, fill-in, and short answer were included that reflect the content and module objectives. The first two types of questions required that answers be justified. Each module test had an 80% pass requirement in order to transfer to the following module. PSTs participating in both groups administered the final course test within the time frame (35 min) calculated in the pilot testing stage (average time for answering test questions). The final course test was administered for both groups in a paper-and-pencil format. 4.2.2. E-learning attitude scale The authors developed an e-learning attitude scale (Appendix 3) after a literature review on articles related to learning by computers in general. The scale is composed of 24 items, where students are asked to check their level of agreement with each item using a five point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for positive items. Negative items had reversed scores (strongly disagree = 5 to strongly agree = 1). The e-learning attitude scale is divided into two sub-scales that are summed together to calculate total scores. The first sub-scale measures attitudes towards e-learning in general (12 statements: 6 positive and 6 negative). The other sub-scale is for learning science teaching methods course via an e-learning approach (12 statements: 6 positive and 6 negative). PSTs’ total scores can range from 24 to 120.

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

993

4.2.3. Cooperativeness scale Previous scales on cooperativeness in studies such as, Lu and Argyle (1991) and Neo (2004) helped the authors to develop a 20 item scale (10 positive items and 10 negative, Appendix 4). Negative and positive items were randomly distributed in the scale to avoid random selection of responses. Participants were asked to check their level of agreement with each item using a five point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for positive items. Negative items had reversed scores (strongly disagree = 5 to strongly agree = 1). Total scores can range from 20 to 100. 4.2.4. End of course interview questions Follow-up interviews provided qualitative data from PSTs in the experimental group as they were asked to express their views concerning the implementation process of the BeLCA. Semi-structured interviews are well suited for case studies because they include specific, well-defined questions determined in advance. They are also useful tools for eliciting opinions, feelings, and values (Patton, 1990). Questions were ‘What are the advantages of using a BeLCA in the science teaching methods course?’ ‘What are the disadvantages of using a BeLCA in the science teaching methods course?’ ‘What are your suggestions to improving this approach of learning?’ and ‘Would you use BeLCA with your classes? Why?’ Responses to these questions were recorded and analysed. 4.3. Procedure The design and development of the blended e-learning course, utilised in this study, was developed according to the ADDIE model (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation) proposed by Dick, Carey, and Carey (2001). This instructional model is based on the systematic development of instruction and learning and is composed of seven phases (Fig. 2): analysis, design, development, implementation, execution, evaluation, and feedback. 1. Analysis: this phase defines ‘what’ to teach. The purpose of this first phase is to detect the learning characteristics and needs of the learners, determine the environment in which the learning is to take place and the available resources. Characteristics of the learners were determined by collecting demographical information and administering a pre-requisite test in computer skills. This phase outputted: learning objectives (terminal and enabling for each module) and educational content (knowledge, skills to be learned and activities to be developed to acquire content of the science teaching methods course).

Analysis

Evaluation

Design

Feedback

Development

Execution

Implementation

Fig. 2. E-learning instructional model.

994

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

2. Design: this phase defines ‘how’ to teach. The outcome from analysis is used to create a blueprint for the instruction, where the learner’s learning process, defining the learning approach, the structure of the information to be delivered (facts, concepts, processes, procedures, and principles), standards to be used, execution criteria, and achievement expected of the learner are specified. In this study, the science teaching methods content was divided into five modules consisting of knowledge and skills in addition to pre/post-tests. In this stage the script or storyboard was created. This was simply a screen-by-screen description of what students will see, hear, and do when running the programme such as graphical student interface buttons and navigational features. Multimedia elements utilized in each module were text, still images and video clips (Appendix 2). Students were required to meet a minimum score requirement of 80% to pass each module. Those who fail the 80% requirement are directed to study the module again then answer another set of questions with the same passing requirement. 3. Development: this phase describes the tools used to teach, the materials, strategies, event sequences, and necessary resources stated in the previous step. These are all put into action. 4. Implementation: this phase involves building the software of the e-learning process. Several software programmes were used such as ‘FrontPage’ that can take onboard text, images and video clips. Pre and post-tests were developed using ‘AuthorWare’ that allows student interaction and immediate feedback. Links were added between content of the course, as hypertext and hypermedia are useful tools for the constructivist designer as a branched design of instruction is constructed rather than a linear format (Alonso, Lo´pez, Manrique, & Vin˜es, 2005). 5. Execution: this phase involves the learner using the learning process. The course in its electronic form was loaded on students’ computers in a lab set up on-campus. The orientation meeting clarified plan of work, time available for finalising each module, deadlines for submitting assignments and requirements to passing the course. 6. Evaluation: information output during execution is gathered. This includes results from post-tests and determining problems or difficulties during execution. 7. Feedback: results from preliminary testing of the course on a small number of students in addition to comments and suggestions from peers and specialists were considered. Suggestions in relation to all stages of the e-instructional model, clarity of photos, videos and presentation of text were all taken into account to modify accordingly before the final version of the course was executed to the experimental group. Results from the experimental overall post-test and students’ opinions of the course were analyzed in light of course objectives to make further modifications where necessary. Feedback in this sense acts as a formative assessment for all stages of the model. PSTs in this study were randomly placed, by the tutor of the course, in stable cooperative pairs to accomplish tasks in and out official class times to apply and extend their knowledge and skills of science teaching. McGrath (1991) suggested that change in the group’s membership in computer-mediated environments affects the group interaction process, member reactions, and group task performance. Therefore stability of the pairs in this study was intended for the whole course. Pairs in the experimental group were given no instructions as to who was to interact with the computer. The decisions and procedures of handling the computer were left to the pairs to make on their own. Grading of the pairs was made clear from the out set. Due to the nature of the participants, all pairs were homogeneous in terms of gender except for one heterogeneous pair in each group. This resulted in six female pairs and one heterogeneous pair in the experimental group. The control group consisted of five female pairs and one heterogeneous pair. The physical setting of the two groups varied. The control group sat in rows in a traditional lecturing setting. The experimental group used the computer lab where each pair shared a working place and computer. The experimental group had their assignments sent via email at pre-set dates where the tutor gave the appropriate feedback. The control group handed over paper-assignments. In the experimental group, the pre/postmodule tests were only available during a specific week and were graded instantly after the completion of each test. Students in the control group only had the final overall post-course-test. Table 1 represents stages and procedure of implementing this study.

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

995

Table 1 Stages and procedure of the study Stages

Experimental group

Stage one

Administering pre-test tools Pre-requisite test on computer skills — Orientation on blended e-leaning environment, Orientation on course content and overview on module one course content and overview on module one (F2F) (F2F)

Stage two

Pre-module one test — Presentation of module one, ‘NOS’ in a blended e-leaning Presentation of module one, ‘NOS’ in a F2F lecturing environment in addition to cooperative assignments sent by environment in addition to cooperative assignments handed over to the tutor with feedback presented in the next lecture emails with immediate feedback Post-module one test F2F meetings to answer students’ questions and introduce an overview of module/topic two

Stage three

Pre-module two test — Presentation of module two ‘General objectives of science Presentation of module two ‘General objectives of science teaching’ in a blended e-leaning environment in addition to teaching’ in a F2F lecturing environment in addition to cooperative assignments handed over to the tutor with cooperative assignments sent by emails with immediate feedback feedback presented in the next lecture Post-module two test — F2F meetings to answer students’ questions and introduce an overview of module/topic three

Stage four

Pre-module three test — Presentation of module three ‘Science conventional teaching Presentation of module three ‘Science conventional teaching methods’ in a blended e-leaning environment in addition to methods’ in a F2F lecturing environment in addition to cooperative assignments sent by emails with immediate cooperative assignments handed over to the tutor with feedback feedback presented in the next lecture Post-module three test — F2F meetings to answer students’ questions and introduce an overview of module/topic four

Stage five

Pre-module four test — Presentation of module four ‘Science contemporary teaching Presentation of module four ‘Science contemporary teaching methods’ in a blended e-leaning environment in addition to methods’ in a F2F lecturing environment in addition to cooperative assignments handed over to the tutor with cooperative assignments sent by emails with immediate feedback presented in the next lecture feedback Post-module four test — F2F meetings to answer students’ questions and introduce an overview of module/topic five

Stage six

Pre-module five test — Presentation of module five ‘Assessment’ in a blended ePresentation of module five ‘Assessment’ in a F2F lecturing leaning environment in addition to cooperative assignments environment in addition to cooperative assignments handed sent by emails with immediate feedback over to the tutor with feedback presented in the next lecture Post-module five test — F2F meetings to answer students’ questions and conclude the course Administering post-test tools

Stage seven

Control group

5. Results 5.1. Demographic and background comparisons Demographic information was gathered on participants’ geographic location of household, previous experience with computers (personal, educational), computer ownership and daily hours using computers. Personal experiences were defined by informal use of computers (i.e. emails, chats and entertainment). Educational experiences were defined by formal use of computers (i.e. courses). There were no statistical differences, by applying a Mann–Whitney test, between the two groups (p > 0.5). Table 2 shows participant’s demographic data. Pre-testing of the research instruments administered to both groups resulted also in no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). Hence it was concluded that they were similar in their achievement-levels, attitudes towards e-learning and cooperativeness.

996

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

Table 2 Participants’ demographic information Variable

Experimental group n = 14

Control group n = 12

Geographic location of household

3 rural 11 urban

4 rural 8 urban

Personal experiences

7 yes 7 no

7 yes 5 no

Educational experiences

14 (basic course on computer skills)

12 (basic course on computer skills)

Ownership

4 yes 10 no

5 yes 7 no

Daily hours of computer usage

11: (0–1) h 3: (2–4) h

8: (0–1) h 4: (2–4) h

The results below present answers to the research questions of this study. 5.1.1. Research question one ‘What is the effectiveness of a BeLCA on PSTs’ achievement levels in a science teaching methods course?’ Participants’ achievement-levels were based on scores gained from an overall post-course-test and subscores gained from pair cooperative assignments during the process. Each participant in the pair was awarded the same score to ensure accountability and responsibility of the pair to complete their tasks. Sum of the two grades (overall and pair-work) is termed by ‘comprehensive-score’. The former score represented 60% of the ‘comprehensive-score’, while the latter represented 40%, Table 3. Table 3 summarizes a Mann–Whitney analysis that revealed significant differences between the groups in measuring the effect of BeLCA on post-overall-course-test and ‘comprehensive-score’. Scores on the cooperative assignments did not reveal significant differences. Mann–Whitney test analysis between pre and postscores on the overall-course-test for those in the experimental group revealed a significant difference (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found between pre and post-scores in the control group (p > 0.05). 5.1.2. Research question two ‘What is the effectiveness of a BeLCA on PSTs’ attitude toward this type of learning approach?’ Participants’ responses to the sub-scales: attitudes towards e-learning and learning a science teaching methods course via an e-learning approach, in addition to the total scores on the scale are presented in Table 4. Table 4 summarizes a Mann–Whitney analysis that showed a significant difference between the two groups in their attitudes towards e-learning, learning a science teaching methods course via an e-learning approach and total scores on the scale. Hence, the experimental group had positive attitudes towards e-learning. This was represented by responses to various statements. The majority of statements that positively related to elearning in general or learning science methods course via e-learning had a raw score of higher than three points. Every question that related negatively to e-learning had a raw score of below three points. For example, all students either strongly agreed (8 students) or agreed (6 students) that they prefer learning this course

Table 3 Mann–Whitney test results for achievement grades between experimental n = 14 and control groups n = 12 Score

Mann–Whitney U

Post-course-test Cooperative assignments Comprehensive score

34.50 82.00 37.00

a **

Not corrected for ties. Sig. <0.05.

Z 2.563 0.104 2.422

Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)

Exact sig. [2*(1-tailed sig.)]

0.010 0.918 0.015

0.009a,** 0.940a 0.015a,**

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

997

Table 4 Mann–Whitney test results for attitude toward e-learning between experimental n = 14 and control groups n = 12 Scale

Mann–Whitney U

E-learning Science learning via e-learning Total score on scale

45.00 44.00 42.00

a **

Z 2.007 2.072 2.165

Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)

Exact sig. [2*(1-Tailed sig.)]

0.045 0.038 0.030

0.046a,** 0.041a,** 0.031a,**

Not corrected for ties. Sig. <0.05.

Table 5 Mann–Whitney test results for attitude toward cooperativeness between experimental n = 14 and control groups n = 12 Mann–Whitney U 58.00 a

Z 1.325

Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)

Exact sig. [2*(1-tailed sig.)]

0.185

0.193a

Not corrected for ties.

electronically; 12 positively agreed (7 strongly agreed and 5 agreed) that learning the course was fun and interesting; 7 strongly agreed, 6 agreed and 1 disagreed that they intend to participate in a science teaching methods course only if taught electronically. 5.1.3. Research question three ‘What is the effectiveness of a BeLCA on students’ attitudes towards cooperativeness?’ Participants’ responses to the cooperativeness scale are presented in Table 5. Table 5 summarizes a Mann–Whitney analysis. Differences between the two groups were in favour of the experimental group but did not reach a significant difference. However, there were significant differences (p < 0.05) between pre and post-cooperativeness scores in both groups, the experimental and control. 5.1.4. Research question four ‘What are PSTs’ views on implementing a BeLCA?’ The feedback received with regards to the use of BeLCA to deliver the science teaching methods course was mainly positive and encouraging. PSTs generally favoured the design and delivery of the course (11 responses) supporting its reach to other courses (10 responses) and suggested the inclusion of an online component for off-campus access (7 responses). What seems to have been valued most in this experience is the benefit of learning from peers as it helped clear problems and provide for encouragement (11 responses). Changing roles of student and tutor surprised most students as they experienced a type of so called ‘student-centred’ environment (10 responses). Negative interpretations of this change were limitedly reported as a disadvantage (5 responses). Examples of responses to the question: ‘What are the advantages of using a BeLCA in the course?’ are as follows: ‘‘We were able to work together and clarify various points to each other while we were in the lab sharing responsibility’’. ‘‘I was worried at the beginning to this kind of learning that I am not used to, but face to face meetings were a chance to ask some questions on points I found a bit confusing’’. ‘‘I felt that this type of course delivery gave me the responsibility of my own learning and give help to my colleagues. . .I feel more confident in myself’’. ‘‘It is good to learn using computers because as future teachers we should start using computers in our classes too’’. ‘‘The course is an ideal one. We have access to course content on the computer and assignments and meetings with the tutor’’.

998

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

‘‘I prefer the blended e-learning setting over the traditional as it gave me a chance to go over the material for as many times as I want and in the sequence that I want. . .getting the score of the post-test straight away was great’’. Examples of responses to the question: ‘What are the disadvantages of using a BeLCA in the course?’ are as follows: ‘‘I felt that I am slower than the rest as I did not get the passing score to module two easily’’. ‘‘I do not like working with computers and the course required me to do so’’. ‘‘The role of the tutor was different. . .it was only to clarify difficulties’’. Examples of responses to the question: ‘What are your suggestions to improving this approach of learning?’ are as follows: ‘‘I have a computer at home and I really would like the course be uploaded to the internet to study from home’’. ‘‘The face to face meetings with the tutor was good, but I suggest having more meetings’’. ‘‘I wish that other subjects used the same way of delivering their course’’. Examples of responses to the question: ‘Would you use a blended e-learning approach with your classes? Why?’ Although this was a closed question that required a yes or no answer, the second part of the question was an open one that justified answers to the first part. Responses (13 out of 14) were positive and participants added the following: ‘‘It gave me confidence to working with computers in the future’’. ‘‘I am anxious to trying out using this approach [BeLCA] in my science class’’. ‘‘I feel I have the skills of a modern teacher’’. 6. Discussion The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a BeLCA as a delivery approach to a science teaching methods course in an Egyptian teacher education programme. The BeLCA was designed according to the ADDIE instructional design model. Significant findings, of this study, largely concur with the majority of the relevant literature, albeit with some differences, in relation to student learning and achievement levels (Charnistski, Molinaro, Corabi, & Nolan, 2003; Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001), and the increase of attitudes towards learning using computers (AzTEA, 2005; Bennett & Scholes, 2001; Brown & Fouts, 2003; Fouda, 2006; Herndon, 2003; Schacter & Fagnano, 1999; Wilson & Peterson, 1995). 6.1. Effectiveness of BeLCA on PSTs’ achievement-levels in the science teaching methods course Significant differences found in the post-overall-course-test and comprehensive-scores could be due to the affect of the independent variable presented in this study, namely BeLCA that incorporates several aspects. First, the cognitive interaction that happened between PSTs in the experimental group, while in pairs, and the content presented in the BeLCA course. This finding builds on others studies that reported similarly (Aviv, 2000; Mortera-Gutierrez & Murphy, 2000; Muirhead, 2000). Schellens and Valcke (2004) in their study, for example, found that discussion in smaller groups reflected larger proportions of higher levels of cognitive interaction and knowledge construction as participants were very task-oriented. Second, pairs were drawn from a cohort familiar with each other for two years. It seems that familiarity of participants may have acted as a vehicle to learning the content presented via the BeLCA. Also the social context, which occurred through F2F interaction provided for opportunities of social discourse between participants in each pair in a form of peer-tutoring. In a study by Wilkinson and Fung (2002), they reported on the positive direct and indirect influences of peer-led cooperative small groups. They also cited the term ‘black

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

999

box’ by Lou et al.’s (1996) meta-analysis that describes what happens in small groups and the role of peer influences. Third, the process of the BeLCA (Table 1) utilised in this study. Pre- and post-modular tests and the 80% pre-determined level of transmission from one module to another appear to have provided for some type of mastery learning of the content. Also, the immediate feedback from the tutor to student’s cooperative assignments that were sent via emails may have helped clarify areas of strengths and weaknesses in their learning. 6.2. Effectiveness of BeLCA on PSTs’ attitudes toward e-learning Significant differences in post-e-learning attitude scale data between the experimental and control groups suggest the effectiveness of the BeLCA. This can be mainly due to the positive novel experience the experimental group had in addition to feeling that they are dealing with a contemporary technological aspect. Findings from the qualitative data seem to support this interpretation. One PST reported that the experience induced the feeling of a ‘modern teacher’ while others reported that their computer skills improved. Previous studies, however, had varying findings in regard to students’ attitudes towards e-learning. Positive attitudes were developed, for example, in a Saudi experience with pre-service teachers in a computer course (Fouda, 2006) and with school students in the States (Herndon, 2003). Sutton (1991) found that students developed more positive attitudes toward computer-based instructional lessons and learning with a computer when they worked in cooperative learning groups than when they worked individually. Negative attitudes were found in a study (Keller & Cernerud, 2002) that involved students from the Schools of engineering and health sciences. The use and implementation strategy at those Schools seemed to overrule the individual background variables traditionally said to influence user perceptions. In general, findings of previous studies should not be generalised due to the nature of each study and how e-learning was implemented (i.e. online asynchronous, web-based, or through CDs). 6.3. Effectiveness of BeLCA on PSTs’ attitudes toward cooperativeness Differences in students’ scores in the cooperative assignments and post-attitudes towards cooperativeness unexpectedly did not reach a significant level between the two groups (p > 0.05). This finding contradicts other studies that found an impact of computer-based learning on cooperative and collaborative skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 2002). However, significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between pre/post-experimental and control cooperativeness-data. This finding implies that cooperation was fostered in both groups with and without technology, but by different degrees. This unexpected result raises the following questions that will be discussed: 1. What possibly caused the significant difference between pre/post-control-group data? 2. What possibly caused the significant difference between pre/post-experimental-group data? 3. What possibly caused the non-significant difference between post-data in the two groups? It seems that the pair-cooperative assignments required from PSTs in both groups affected the final findings. Particularly that some aspects of positive interdependence were evident in both groups. These were setting mutual goals (accomplishing cooperative-assignments) and joint rewards (40% grading system). Furthermore, the homogeneity of pairs within and across the groups, which was a necessity due to the comparative nature of the study and the experimental design applied, could have also affected the results. Participants from the same gender appear to communicate and interact positively together, especially that the interaction was F2F with peers and with the same tutor of the course. This suggests the value of F2F interactions and coincides with related study’s (i.e. Conrad, 2005) and with the eastern culture of Egypt where connectedness between participants forming pairs can be influenced by the aspect of gender. Nevertheless, evidence from the literature is mixed in reaction to whether gender serves as a status characteristic. For example, studies of elementary students (i.e. Fitzpatrick & Hardman, 2000; Underwood,

1000

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

Underwood, & Wood, 2000) show differences in the styles of interaction between children in same and mixed gender pairs. Mixed pairs usually showed lower levels of interaction and cooperation. However, these differences have not always translated into differences in performance. It is worth noting here that the substantial majority of previous studies on cooperative-based groups intentionally formed heterogeneous groups that reflect the diversity of students’ backgrounds, abilities and gender. This study, however, employed a different process due to the experimental design, characteristics of the participants, and nature of its computer-based learning. In addition to the reasons discussed above, significant differences between pre/post-experimental data can be attributed to other aspects of positive interdependence. This is the shared resources presented in the working place that may have facilitated peer-interaction while learning the content and resulted in higher though not significant differences in post-cooperativeness-data between the two groups. Qualitative data, whether by video recordings or descriptions and assessments of how cooperative peers were, could have provided a clearer picture than that provided by the quantitative data in this study. 6.4. Pre-service teachers’ views on implementing BeLCA Qualitative data from participants’ responses to end of course open-questions revealed various advantages of BeLCA. Responses were triangulated with post-experimental group data from the attitude scale towards elearning. Social interdependency was stated as one of the advantages. Responses to item six (Appendix 1) revealed positive attitudes as 9 strongly agreed and 5 agreed that e-learning encourages cooperation. This coincides with previous studies, such as Schellens and Valcke (2005). Participants stated that the experience in this study is a chance to transfer skills to work place. This correlates with responses to item 10 (Appendix 1), as 6 strongly agreed, 5 agreed, 2 gave neutral responses and 1 disagreed. Other advantages stated in the follow-up interview were interactivity with a facilitative tutor; learner-autonomy (Gulc, 2006); accommodation to learner pace and learning styles (Eklund, Kay, & Lynch, 2003); chance to transfer skills to work place (Halpin, 1999). These results can be due to adopting eclectic theories of learning that introduces various types of interaction (teacher, content, social), in addition to acknowledging catering for learning styles through one of the stages of the ADDIE instructional design. Moreover, some of the advantages of e-learning, such as immediate feedback from module pre/post-tests, tutor feedback to assignments via e-mail, F2F meetings after studying modules with peers and the revisit of content material could have positively affected participants’ views. 7. Conclusion Based on the research presented in this paper, this study not only has significant practical implications for teacher education programmes in Egypt, but also provides contributions to the current literature related to blended e-learning, cooperativeness and computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW). First, it contributes to the growing empirical literature on the effectiveness of contemporary computer technology instruction by providing a direct comparison in the Egyptian context between blended e-learning, represented in the BeLCA and classroom delivery, represented in the lecturing instruction, via a naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Research and development into this type of teaching has focused mainly on the implementation of technological resources. Less effort has, however, gone into defining instructional processes suited for this type of teaching. This study is therefore an attempt to fill this research gap particularly at the university level. In doing so, this study directly addresses the call for more rigorous comparisons of delivery methods that specifically focus on the role of the adopted instructional design (such as ADDIE), participants’ characteristics, the process of paring/grouping, F2F student-student interaction and student-tutor interaction, the appropriate balance between e-leaning and F2F approaches, and peer-tutoring. Second, previous studies comparing blended e-learning to classroom instruction have generally not attempted to understand why or under what conditions one approach may be more effective than the other. Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, and Wisher (2006) concluded that studies have not tested theories that might be helpful for understanding why technology-enhanced delivery methods would be more effective than classroom instruction.

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

1001

This study used eclectic theories that highlight the various types of interaction (content, social, and teacher) that can take place in a blended e-learning environment. Of course, none of the three modes of interaction function independently in practice. The eclectic theories were to focus on the learning process, instructional design, and the technology to understand the relative effectiveness of the delivery method. Clark (1983) argued that significant differences between technology-based and traditional interventions resulted from more rigorously designed instruction, not from media affects. Kozma (1994) conceded the importance of instructional design, but argued that media mattered too. Third, it is suggested from the results of this study that national and international requests for elearning courses need to become more of a reality, particularly in teacher education programmes if teachers were to integrate technology in their own classes. However, future studies are required in Egyptian teacher education programmes where various types of interaction can occur in order to develop participants’ achievement-levels, attitudes and cooperativeness necessary for lifelong learning skills through well designed computer-supported cooperative delivery approaches. Nevertheless, qualitative data seem more appropriate to capture participants’ cooperative skills, as this seems one of the limitations this study acknowledges.

Appendix 1. Home page of science teaching methods course

This is a print screen of the main page of the Science teaching methods course. It shows titles of the five interrelated modules: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Nature of science (NOS). General objectives of science teaching. Conventional science teaching methods. Contemporary science teaching methods. Assessing pupils’ learning.

1002

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

Appendix 2. Text and still pictures in module five, assessment

This is a print screen of one of the pages in module five that shows the usage of text and still pictures that are present in the content. Appendix 3. Attitude towards e-learning Instructions: Please indicate your reaction to each of the following statements by circling the number that represents your level of agreement or disagreement with it. Make sure to respond to every statement. The term ‘e-learning’ refers to any electronic learning media such as: computers, CDs, and PowerPoint presentations. Statement 1. I am in complete control when I use e-learning techniques 2. I find that dealing with e-learning techniques makes me nervous 3. I feel confident learning necessary skills to using etechniques 4. I feel my knowledge regarding e-learning is limited compared to my peers 5. I get distracted when I handle e-learning techniques 6. E-learning increases cooperation with peers 7. I get scared when I operate e-learning techniques 8. I enjoy talking with others about e-learning 9. I can not solve problems regarding how to manage e-learning techniques

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

5

4

3

2

1

5 1 5 1 5

4 2 4 2 4

3 3 3 3 3

2 4 2 4 2

1 5 1 5 1

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

1003

Appendix 3 (continued) Statement 10. E-learning techniques in the classroom will help me become a better teacher 11. I feel disappointed when I walk into a room knowing that I will use any type of e-learning 12. Teacher education programmes should include how to deal with e-learning techniques 13. I want to learn science teaching methods course via e-learning 14. I think learning science teaching methods course electronically will not help my future work 15. I intend to participate in science teaching methods course only if taught electronically 16. I fear being taught science teaching methods course electronically 17. I wait eagerly for learning science teaching methods course electronically 18. I enjoy learning science teaching methods course electronically 19. I would like to spend twice the time for learning science teaching methods course if it were electronic 20. I get low grads if taught science teaching methods course electronically 21. I think learning science teaching methods course electronically is a waste of time 22. Introducing science teaching methods course electronically makes learning easier 23. I can learn science teaching methods course better without referring to e-learning technologies 24. I avoid learning science teaching methods course electronically

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

Appendix 4. Cooperativeness scale Instructions: Please indicate your reaction to each of the following statements by circling the number that represents your level of agreement or disagreement with it. Make sure to respond to every statement Statement 1. An important part of education is learning to get on with others 2. Competition is the best way to teach children in school 3. I never share my ideas or materials with other students 4. I do not like to cooperate with other students over academic work

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

(continued on next page)

1004

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

Appendix 3 (continued)

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Statement

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

It is often difficult working together with other people Involvement in joint projects is very satisfying It is often more productive to work on your own Team work is always the best way of getting good results It is difficult to arrive at an agreed decision, in groups Using active listening skills enhanced communication in my group Functioning as a team member does not help in future work Decisions taken by individuals are better than those taken by groups Cooperation between members of the team is the key to success Work accomplished individually has more quality than that accomplished in teams Participating in teams helps exchange experiences I would like to work in a group even if it was not required to do so Working in groups help develop friendships with other students Participating in a group increases motivation to work I learn more from the cooperation than on my own Group work makes students dependent on others

5

4

3

2

1

1 5 1

2 4 2

3 3 3

4 2 4

5 1 5

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

5

4

3

2

1

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1 5

2 4

3 3

4 2

5 1

References Abdelmeneim, A., Said, F., Hassan, N., & Malek, K. (2000). Training teachers at a distance on using technology in class. World-bank and Ministry of Education. Cairo: Dar El-Tyseer. (in Arabic). Alonso, F., Lo´pez, G., Manrique, D., & Vin˜es, J. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217–235. Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4 (2). Retrieved 27 December 2006 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/v4n2_aviv.asp. AzTEA, Arizona Technology in Education Alliance (2005). School Improvement and Technology. Retrieved 7 November 2006 from: http://www.aztea.org/resources/whitepaper/improvement.htm. Bell, L. (Ed.) (2001). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology: Perspectives of the leaders of twelve national education associations. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 1(4) 517–534. Retrieved 5 November 2006 from: http:// www.editlib.org/index.cfm/files/paper_10740.pdf?fuseaction=Reader.DownloadFullText&paper_id=10740. Bennett, L., & Scholes, R. (2001). Goals and attitudes related to technology use in a social studies method course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (3), 373–385. Retrieved 28 November 2006 from: http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm/files/ paper_10733.pdf?fuseaction=Reader.DownloadFullText&paper_id=10733. Bielawski, L., & Metcalf, D. (2005). Blended eLearning: Integrating knowledge, performance, support, and online learning (2nd ed.). United States: HRD press. Brown, C., & Fouts, J. (2003). Michigan Technology integration training initiative. Retrieved 28 November 2006 from: http:// www.gatesfoundation.com/nr/downloads/ed/researchevaluation/MITech2003.pdf. Byers, C. (2001). Interactive assessment: an approach to enhance teaching and learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 359–374.

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

1005

Charnistski, C., Molinaro, J., Corabi, J., & Nolan, K. (2003). Comparing student achievement in a graduate level research methods course using face-to-face and web-based instruction: result of a pilot study. In A. Rosset, (Eds.) World conference on e-learning in corp., government., health, & higher education (ELEARN), VA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp. 174–177. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459. Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1–20. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2001). The Systematic Design of Instruction (5th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc. Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. Learning and training innovations newsline. Retrieved 12 November 2006 from: http://www.ltimagazine.com/ltimagazine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=11755. Eklund, J., Kay, M., & Lynch, H. (2003). E-learning: Emerging issues and key trends. Retrieved 28 July 2006 from: http:// www.flexiblelearning.net.au/research/2003/elearning250903final.doc. Fitzpatrick, H., & Hardman, M. (2000). Mediated activity in the primary classroom: Girls, boys and computers. Learning and Instruction, 10(5), 431–446. Fouda, O. (2006). Measuring the impact of cooperative and traditional methods on learning the principles of computer programming for students at faculty of Education: a field study. Journal of King Saud University, Educational Science and Islamic Studiesv, 2(11), 101–122, in Arabic. Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational Research: an introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers. Graves, N., & Graves, T. (1985). Creating a cooperative learning environment: an ecological approach. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn (pp. 403–436). New York: Plenum. Greene, J., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 5–17. Gulc, E. (2006). Using blended learning to accommodate different learning styles. Retrieved 5 January 2007 from: http:// www.business.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/landt/learning/blended/gulc.doc. Halpin, R. (1999). A model of constructivist learning practice: computer literacy integrated to elementary mathematics and science teacher education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 128–138. Harriman, G. (2004). What is Blended Learning? E-Learning Resources. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from: http://www.grayharriman.com/blended_learning.htm. Herndon, S., (2003). Technology vs. lecture in classroom guidance lessons. Retrieved 28 November 2006 from:http://chiron.valdosta.edu/ are/vol1no2/PDF%20article%20manuscript/herndon.pdf. Hooper, S. (1992). Cooperation learning and computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 21–38. ICTP, Information and communication technology project (2007). Arab republic of Egypt, Ministry of Higher Education. Retrieved 10 January 2007 from: http://www.ictp.org.eg/e-learning.htm. Ismail, E. (2001). Information technology and educational modernization. Cairo: Alam ElKetab, in Arabic. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1992). Positive interdependency: Key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1017–1044). New York: Macmillan. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, & F. B. Bryant (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 9–35). New York: Plenum Press. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 95–105. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998a). Cooperation in the classroom. Allyn and Bacon: Springer. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998b). Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, 30(4), 26–35. Joliffe, A., Ritter, J., & Stevens, D. (2001). The online learning handbook: Developing and using web-based learning. Kogan Page: Springer. Joy-Matthews, J., Megginson, D., & Surtees, M. (2004). Human resource development (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page. Keller, C. & Cernerud, L. (2002). Students’ perceptions of e-learning in university education. Journal of Educational Media, 27. Retrieved 28 September 2002 from: http://beat.doebe.li/bibliothek/t03555.html. Kendall, M. (2001). Teaching online to campus-based students: The experience of using WebCT for the community information module at Manchester Metropolitan University. Education for Information, 19(4), 325–346. Kerres, M., & De Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2/3), 101–113. Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7–19. Kruse, K. (2004). The benefits and drawbacks of e-learning. Retrieved 5 December 2006 from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/ art1_3.htm. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458. Lu, L., & Argyle, M. (1991). Happiness and cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1019–1030. Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18–23. McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22, 147–174. Mortera-Gutierrez, F., & Murphy, K. (2000). Instructor interactions in distance education environment. Paper presented at the annual distance education conference (7th, Austin, TX, January 25–28).

1006

H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 988–1006

Muirhead, B. (2000). Interactivity in a graduate distance education school. Educational Technology & Society, 3(1), 93–96. Neo, M. (2004.) Cooperative learning on the web: A group based, student centred learning experience in the Malaysian classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20 (2), pp. 171–190. Retrieved 2 February 2007 from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ ajet/ajet20/neo.html. Piskurich, G. (Ed.). (2004). Getting the most from online learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Rovai, A., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5 (2). Retrieved 20 October 2006 from:http:// www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274. Saunders, G., & Klemming, F. (2003). Integrating technology into a traditional learning environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 74–86. Schacter, J., & Fagnano, C. (1999). Does computer technology improve student learning and achievement? How, when, and under what conditions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(4), 329–343. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2004). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349–370. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: what about the impact on cognitive process? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957–975. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 44(1), 5–27. Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623–664. Sutton, R. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 475–503. Underwood, J., Underwood, G., & Wood, D. (2000). When does gender matter? Interactions during computer-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 10(5), 447–462. Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. Paper presented at the Euro-CSCL, Maastricht, 22–24 March. Retrieved 2 March 2007 from: http://www.ll.unimaas.nl/ euro-cscl/Papers/166.doc. Warschauer, M. (2004). The rhetoric and reality of aid: promoting educational technology in Egypt. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(3). Retrieved 28 November 2006 from: http://www.gse.uci.edu/faculty/markw/rhetoric.pdf. Wilkinson, I., & Fung, I. (2002). Small-group composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 425–447. Williams, S. (2003). Clerical medical feeds back on blended learning. Industrial and Commercial Training, 35(1), 22–25. Wilson, B., & Peterson, K. (1995). Successful technology integration in an elementary school: A case study. In C. Lucas & L. Lucas (Eds.), Practitioners write the book: What works in educational technology (pp. 701–767). Denton, TX: Texas Center for Educational Technology.