Using Blended Project-Based Learning for Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use and Academic Achievement in Higher Education
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Blended-Project-Based Learning (BPBL) Approach
3. Theoretical Model and Hypotheses
3.1. Perceived Self-Efficacy
3.2. Perceived Enjoyment
3.3. Perceived Usefulness
3.4. Behavioral Intention to Use BPBL
3.5. Students’ Academic Achievement
4. Research Methodology
5. Results and Data Analysis
5.1. Measurement Model and Instrumentation
5.2. Construct Validity of Measurements
5.3. Convergent Validity of Measurements
5.4. Discriminant Validity of Measures
5.5. Analysis of the Structural Model
6. Discussion and Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Simeonov, T. Blending Educational Communication: A Bulgarian Case. Rhetor. Commun. 2015, 17, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Krajcik, J.; Blumenfeld, P. Project-Based Learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences; Sawyer, R.K., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Simeonov, T.S. Blended Project-based Learning for Building 21st Century Skills in a Bulgarian School. In Conference Proceedings. ICT for Language Learning; Libreria Universitaria It Edizioni: L’Aquila, Italy, 2016; p. 108. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Alias, N.; Othman, M.S.; Ahmed, I.A.; Zeki, A.M.; Saged, A.A. Social Media Use, Collaborative Learning and Students’ academic Performance: A Systematic Literature Review of Theoretical Models. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2017, 95, 5399–5414. [Google Scholar]
- Almulla, M.A. The Efficacy of Employing Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Approach as a Method of Facilitating Students’ Achievement. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 146480–146494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alamri, M.M. Students’ academic achievement performance and satisfaction in a flipped classroom in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2019, 11, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alalwan, N.; Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Alfarraj, O.; Alzahrani, A.; Yahaya, N.; Al-Rahmi, A.M. Integrated Three Theories to Develop a Model of Factors Affecting Students’ Academic Performance in Higher Education. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 98725–98742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alamri, M.M. Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions toward Social Media Usage and Academic Performance: A Study from Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (IJET) 2019, 14, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Yahaya, N.; Alamri, M.M.; Aljarboa, N.A.; Kamin, Y.B.; Moafa, F.A. A model of factors affecting cyber bullying behaviors among university students. IEEE Access 2018, 7, 2978–2985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Yahaya, N.; Alamri, M.M.; Aljarboa, N.A.; Kamin, Y.B.; Saud, M.S.B. How cyber stalking and cyber bullying affect students’ open learning. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 20199–20210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavanagh, S.S.; Rainey, E. Learning to support adolescent literacy: Teacher educator pedagogy and novice teacher take up in secondary English language arts teacher preparation. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2017, 54, 904–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reisman, A.; Kavanagh, S.S.; Monte-Sano, C.; Fogo, B.; Simmons, E.; Cipparone, P. Facilitating whole-class discussions in history: A framework for preparing teacher candidates. J. Teach. Educ. 2018, 69, 278–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossman, P.; Dean, C.G.P.; Kavanagh, S.S.; Herrmann, Z. Preparing teachers for project-based teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 2019, 100, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsybulsky, D.; Muchnik-Rozanov, Y. The development of student-teachers’ professional identity while team-teaching science classes using a project-based learning approach: A multi-level analysis. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 79, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, D.M.; Crawford, L.; Walden, R. Testing the efficacy of team teaching. Learn. Environ. Res. 2007, 10, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, L.C.; Lee, G.C. A team-teaching model for practicing project-based learning in high school: Collaboration between computer and subject teachers. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 961–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirici, S.; Uzel, N. Viewpoints and Self-Efficacy of Teachers Participated in Project Training towards Project-Based Learning. Int. Online J. Educ. Teach. 2019, 6, 1037–1056. [Google Scholar]
- Wentworth, J.; Davis, J.R. Enhancing interdisciplinarity through team teaching. In Innovations in Interdisciplinary Teaching; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: Lanham, MD, USA, 2002; pp. 16–37. [Google Scholar]
- Simons, M.; Baeten, M. Student teachers’ team teaching during field experiences: An evaluation by their mentors. Mentor. Tutoring: Partnersh. Learn. 2016, 24, 415–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardiner, W.; Robinson, K.S. Paired field placements: A means for collaboration. New Educ. 2009, 5, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, S. Promoting paired placements in initial teacher education. Int. Res. Geogr. Environ. Educ. 2006, 15, 370–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wassell, B.; LaVan, S.K. Revisiting the dialogue on the transition from coteaching to inservice teaching: New frameworks, additional benefits and emergent issues. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2009, 4, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardiner, W. Mentoring two student teachers: Mentors’ perceptions of peer placements. Teach. Educ. 2010, 21, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, K.; Elmslie, L. Practicum pairs: An alternative for first field experience in early childhood teacher education. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2005, 33, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scantlebury, K.; Gallo-Fox, J.; Wassell, B. Coteaching as a model for preservice secondary science teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2008, 24, 967–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, M.; Francis, R. Mentoring and beginning teachers’ workplace learning. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2001, 29, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, S. Help-seeking behaviour of student teachers. Educ. Res. 2005, 47, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bullough, R.V., Jr.; Young, J.; Birrell, J.R.; Clark, D.C.; Egan, M.W.; Erickson, L.; Welling, M. Teaching with a peer: A comparison of two models of student teaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2003, 19, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2014; pp. 69–128. [Google Scholar]
- Selim, H.M. Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Comput. Educ. 2007, 49, 396–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liaw, S.S. Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Comput. Educ. 2008, 51, 864–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Heijden, H. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 695–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Mis Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, G.S.; Park, S.B.; Oh, J. An examination of factors influencing consumer adoption of short message service (SMS). Psychol. Mark. 2008, 25, 769–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MäNtymäKi, M.; Salo, J. Teenagers in social virtual worlds: Continuous use and purchasing behavior in Habbo Hotel. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 2088–2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Yahaya, N.; Alamri, M.M.; Alyoussef, I.Y.; Al-Rahmi, A.M.; Kamin, Y.B. Integrating innovation diffusion theory with technology acceptance model: Supporting students’ attitude towards using a massive open online courses (MOOCs) systems. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2019, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, M.; Xu, Y.; Yu, Y. An enhanced technology acceptance model for web-based learning. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 2004, 15, 365e374. [Google Scholar]
- Park, E.; Kim, K.J. User acceptance of long-term. evolution (LTE) services an application of extended technology acceptance model. Program Electron. Libr. Inf. Syst. 2013, 47, 188–205. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Bala, H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. J. Decis. Sci. 2008, 39, 273–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pelling, E.; White, K. The theory of planned behavior applied to young people’s use of social networking web sites. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2009, 12, 755–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gómez-Pablos, V.B.; del Pozo, M.M.; Muñoz-Repiso, A.G.V. Project-based learning (PBL) through the incorporation of digital technologies: An evaluation based on the experience of serving teachers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 68, 501–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilbao, J.; Varela, C.; Rebollar, C.; Bravo, E.; García, O. Selecting Assessments for Problem Based Learning. Int. J. Educ. Learn. Syst. 2018, 3, 129–133. [Google Scholar]
- Lampert, M. Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? J. Teach. Educ. 2010, 61, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970, 30, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Hollingsworth, C.L.; Randolph, A.B.; Chong, A.Y.L. An Updated and Expanded Assessment of PLS-SEM in Information Systems Research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 442–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y.; Nassen, K.D. Representation of measurement error in marketing variables: Review of approaches and extension to three-facet designs. J. Econom. 1998, 89, 393–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factors | Items | BIU | PE | PSE | PU | SAA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioral Intention to Use | BIU1 | 0.878889 | 0.455914 | 0.583219 | 0.516134 | 0.587544 |
BIU2 | 0.871241 | 0.412827 | 0.567014 | 0.546148 | 0.572430 | |
BIU3 | 0.856589 | 0.452579 | 0.571780 | 0.569316 | 0.596934 | |
Perceived Enjoyment | PE1 | 0.452275 | 0.866975 | 0.511481 | 0.431910 | 0.560491 |
PE2 | 0.417380 | 0.874638 | 0.506714 | 0.423823 | 0.555515 | |
PE3 | 0.323141 | 0.733009 | 0.365966 | 0.405711 | 0.465189 | |
PE4 | 0.474492 | 0.848408 | 0.498748 | 0.508804 | 0.598297 | |
Perceived Self-Efficacy | PSE1 | 0.599038 | 0.519177 | 0.863085 | 0.491138 | 0.574784 |
PSE2 | 0.500847 | 0.400424 | 0.779310 | 0.389474 | 0.488595 | |
PSE3 | 0.535262 | 0.491806 | 0.839058 | 0.460930 | 0.566839 | |
Perceived Usefulness | PU1 | 0.580998 | 0.496803 | 0.496637 | 0.912311 | 0.605090 |
PU2 | 0.584195 | 0.473593 | 0.491339 | 0.931005 | 0.606942 | |
PU3 | 0.546834 | 0.489035 | 0.496865 | 0.891719 | 0.604206 | |
Students’ Academic Achievement | SAA1 | 0.489760 | 0.425706 | 0.429054 | 0.453846 | 0.714132 |
SAA2 | 0.489398 | 0.476840 | 0.449454 | 0.482821 | 0.744746 | |
SAA3 | 0.513945 | 0.468064 | 0.477199 | 0.453926 | 0.739293 | |
SAA4 | 0.451371 | 0.457391 | 0.453182 | 0.421524 | 0.708723 | |
SAA5 | 0.463820 | 0.480669 | 0.494652 | 0.484303 | 0.775164 | |
SAA6 | 0.502945 | 0.497678 | 0.494823 | 0.496829 | 0.775427 | |
SAA7 | 0.580527 | 0.547729 | 0.533374 | 0.603040 | 0.767073 | |
SAA8 | 0.535999 | 0.531759 | 0.536804 | 0.531268 | 0.761825 | |
SAA9 | 0.505863 | 0.507899 | 0.551550 | 0.511094 | 0.799661 | |
SAA10 | 0.542724 | 0.562680 | 0.541792 | 0.546390 | 0.813481 | |
SAA11 | 0.545692 | 0.544864 | 0.519880 | 0.540274 | 0.784110 | |
SAA12 | 0.554297 | 0.533118 | 0.551163 | 0.548803 | 0.807773 |
Factors | Items | Factors Loading | Composite Reliability | AVE | Cronbach’s Alpha | R Square |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioral Intention to Use | BIU1 | 0.878889 | 0.902420 | 0.755083 | 0.837771 | 0.541467 |
BIU2 | 0.871241 | |||||
BIU3 | 0.856589 | |||||
Perceived Enjoyment | PE1 | 0.866975 | 0.900050 | 0.693434 | 0.851917 | 0.000000 |
PE2 | 0.874638 | |||||
PE3 | 0.733009 | |||||
PE4 | 0.848408 | |||||
Perceived Self-Efficacy | PSE1 | 0.863085 | 0.867104 | 0.685419 | 0.870137 | 0.000000 |
PSE2 | 0.779310 | |||||
PSE3 | 0.839058 | |||||
Perceived Usefulness | PU1 | 0.912311 | 0.936671 | 0.831415 | 0.898491 | 0.000000 |
PU2 | 0.931005 | |||||
PU3 | 0.891719 | |||||
Students’ Academic Achievement | SAA1 | 0.714132 | 0.944682 | 0.587746 | 0.936056 | 0.454586 |
SAA2 | 0.744746 | |||||
SAA3 | 0.739293 | |||||
SAA4 | 0.708723 | |||||
SAA5 | 0.775164 | |||||
SAA6 | 0.775427 | |||||
SAA7 | 0.767073 | |||||
SAA8 | 0.761825 | |||||
SAA9 | 0.799661 | |||||
SAA10 | 0.813481 | |||||
SAA11 | 0.784110 | |||||
SAA12 | 0.807773 |
Factors | Items | BIU | PE | PSE | PU | SAA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioral Intention to Use | BIU | 1.000000 | ||||
Perceived Enjoyment | PE | 0.507177 | 1.000000 | |||
Perceived Self-Efficacy | PES | 0.660695 | 0.571198 | 1.000000 | ||
Perceived Usefulness | PU | 0.626213 | 0.533269 | 0.542589 | 1.000000 | |
Students’ Academic Achievement | SAA | 0.674230 | 0.658434 | 0.657920 | 0.663777 | 1.000000 |
H | Independent | Relationship | Dependent | Path Coefficient | Standard .E | T. Value | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | PSE | BIU | 0.424980 | 0.122690 | 3.463864 | Accepted | |
2 | PE | BIU | 0.074698 | 0.116686 | 0.640161 | Accepted | |
3 | PU | BIU | 0.355789 | 0.115663 | 3.076077 | Accepted | |
4 | BIU | SAA | 0.674230 | 0.061310 | 10.996989 | Accepted |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alamri, M.M. Using Blended Project-Based Learning for Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use and Academic Achievement in Higher Education. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050207
Alamri MM. Using Blended Project-Based Learning for Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use and Academic Achievement in Higher Education. Education Sciences. 2021; 11(5):207. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050207
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlamri, Mahdi Mohammed. 2021. "Using Blended Project-Based Learning for Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use and Academic Achievement in Higher Education" Education Sciences 11, no. 5: 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050207
APA StyleAlamri, M. M. (2021). Using Blended Project-Based Learning for Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use and Academic Achievement in Higher Education. Education Sciences, 11(5), 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050207