Role of Internet Self-Efficacy and Interactions on Blended Learning Effectiveness

References

• Bonk CJ, and Graham CR. The handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs. Germany: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Yeld N. Can UN development goals fix higher education’s problems? 2016 April 08 accessed 2021 October 21. https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/can-un-development-goals-fix-higher-educations-problems
   Google Scholar
• Dwivedi YK, Hughes DL, Coombs C, Constantiou I, Duan Y, Edwards JS, Gupta B, Lal B, Misra S, Prashant P, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management research and practice: transforming education, work and life. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;55:102211. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iivari N, Sharma S, Ventä-Olkkonen L. Digital transformation of everyday life–How COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? Int J Inf Manage. 2020;55:102183. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shirish A, Chandra S, Srivastava SC. Switching to online learning during COVID-19: theorizing the role of IT mindfulness and techno eustress for facilitating productivity and creativity in student learning. Int J Inf Manage. 2021;61:102394. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison RM. The transformative potential of disruptions: a viewpoint. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;55:102149. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes SJ. Information management research and practice in the post-COVID-19 world. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;55:102175. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandey N, and Pal A . Impact of digital surge during Covid-19 pandemic: a viewpoint on research and practice. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;55:102171. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittal A, Mantri A, Tandon U, Dwivedi YK. A unified perspective on the adoption of online teaching in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inf Discovery Delivery 2021. ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). doi:10.1108/IDD-09-2020-0114.
   Google Scholar
• Chakraborty T, Kumar A, Upadhyay P, Dwivedi YK. Link between social distancing, cognitive dissonance, and social networking site usage intensity: a country-level study during the COVID-19 outbreak. Internet Res. 2021;31(2):419–56. doi:10.1108/INTR-05-2020-0281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham CR, Allen S, and Ure D. Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. Encyclopedia of information science and technology. First IGI Global. Hershey, Pennsylvania; 2005. 253–259.
   Google Scholar
• Alayyar GM, Fisser P, Voogt J. Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service science teachers: support from blended learning. Aust J Educ Technol. 2012;28(8):8. doi:10.14742/ajet.773.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khaddage F, Müller W, Flintoff K. Advancing mobile learning in formal and informal settings via mobile app technology: where to from here, and how? J Educ Technol Soc. 2016;19:16–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun Z, Liu R, Luo L, Wu M, Shi C. Exploring collaborative learning effect in blended learning environments: exploring collaborative learning effect. J Comput Assist Learn. 2017;33(6):575–87. doi:10.1111/jcal.12201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent J, Panadero E, Lodge JM, and Barba P. Technologies to enhance self-regulated learning in online and computer-mediated learning environments. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2020. 37–52.
   Google Scholar
• Rao KS, Subangi MC, and Malhan IV. Social networks as a platform for academic interaction: possibilities and challenges for Indian Academic Libraries. Asian J Inf Sci Technol . 2019;9(1):6-10.
   Google Scholar
• Means B, Toyama Y, Murphy R, Baki M. The effectiveness of online and blended learning: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teach Coll Rec. 2013;115:1–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tayebinik M, Puteh M. Blended learning or E-learning? Int Mag Adv Computer Sci Telecommun. 2013;3:103–10.
   Google Scholar
• Reavley NJ, Morgan AJ, Fischer J-A, Kitchener B, Bovopoulos N, Jorm AF. Effectiveness of eLearning and blended modes of delivery of Mental Health First Aid training in the workplace: randomised controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):312. doi:10.1186/s12888-018-1888-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drysdale JS, Graham CR, Spring KJ, and Halverson LR . An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. Internet Higher Educ. 2013;17:90–100. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halverson LR, Graham CR. Learner engagement in blended learning environments: a conceptual framework. Online Learning. 2019;23(2):145–78. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Fang Y, Wei KK, Wang Z. Promoting the intention of students to continue their participation in e-learning systems: the role of the communication environment. Inf Technol People. 2012;25(4):356–75. doi:10.1108/09593841211278776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore MG. Three types of interaction. 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Hill T, Chidambaram L, Summers JD. Playing ‘catch up’with blended learning: performance impacts of augmenting classroom instruction with online learning. Behav Inf Technol. 2017;36:54–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintu MJ, Zhu C, Kagambe E. Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. Int J Educ Technol Higher Educ. 2017;14(1):7. doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabah NM. Motivation factors and barriers to the continuous use of blended learning approach using Moodle: students’ perceptions and individual differences. Behav Inf Technol. 2020;39(8):875–98. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2019.1623323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pridmore J, Godin J. Investigation of virtual teams and serious games. J Comput Inf Syst. 2020;60(2):194–200. doi:10.1080/08874417.2018.1443293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eryilmaz M. The effectiveness of blended learning environments. Contemp Issues Educ Res. 2015;8(4):251–56. doi:10.19030/cier.v8i4.9433.
   Google Scholar
• Wai CC, Seng ELK. Measuring the effectiveness of blended learning environment: a case study in Malaysia. Educ Inf Technol. 2015;20(3):429–43. doi:10.1007/s10639-013-9293-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gambari AI, Shittu AT, Ogunlade OO, Osunlade OR. Effectiveness of blended learning and elearning modes of instruction on the performance of undergraduates in Kwara State, Nigeria. MOJES. 2018;5:25–36.
   Google Scholar
• Pereira JA, Pleguezuelos E, Merí A, Molina-Ros A, Molina-Tomás MC, Masdeu C. Effectiveness of using blended learning strategies for teaching and learning human anatomy. Med Edu. 2007;41(2):189–95. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02672.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sulčič V, Lesjak D. E-learning and study effectiveness. J Comput Inf Syst. 2009;49:40–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Social learning theory of aggression. J Commun. 1978;28(3):12–29. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood R, Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14(3):361–84. doi:10.2307/258173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman BJ. A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. J Educ Psychol. 1989;81(3):329–39. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychol. 2001;3(3):265–99. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu JH, Tennyson RD, Hsia TL. A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Comput Educ. 2010;55(1):155–64. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt JT. Preparing students for success in blended learning environments: future oriented motivation and self-regulation. 2007. (Doctoral dissertation, lmu).
   Google Scholar
• Geng S, Law KM, Niu B. Investigating self-directed learning and technology readiness in blending learning environment. Int J Educ Technol Higher Educ. 2019;16(1):17. doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0147-0.
   Google Scholar
• Diep AN, Zhu C, Cocquyt C, De Greef M, Vo MH, Vanwing T. Adult learners’ needs in online and blended learning. Aust J Adult Learn. 2019;59:223–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arpaci I, and Basol G. The impact of preservice teachers’ cognitive and technological perceptions on their continuous intention to use flipped classroom. Educ Inf Technol. 2020;25(5):3503-3514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rashid T, Asghar HM. Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: examining the interrelations. Comput Human Behav. 2016;63:604–12. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu PJ-H, Hui W. Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-mediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decis Support Syst. 2012;53(4):782–92. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuh GD. The national survey of student engagement: conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions Institutional Res. 2009;2009(141):5–20. doi:10.1002/ir.283.
   Google Scholar
• Kuh GD. Excerpt from high-impact educational practices: what they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Assoc Am Colleges Univ. 2008;14:28–29.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart M, Stott T, Nuttall A-M. Student engagement patterns over the duration of level 1 and level 3 geography modules: influences on student attendance, performance and use of online resources. J Geogr Higher Educ. 2011;35(1):47–65. doi:10.1080/03098265.2010.498880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boroujeni MS, Sharma K, Kidziński Ł, Lucignano L, and Dillenbourg P. How to quantify student’s regularity? In: European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 277–91.
   Google Scholar
• Collie RJ, Holliman AJ, Martin AJ. Adaptability, engagement and academic achievement at university. Educ Psychol. 2017;37(5):632–47. doi:10.1080/01443410.2016.1231296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunuc S. The relationships between student engagement and their academic achievement. Int J New Trends Educ Implications. 2014;5:216–31.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschfield PJ, Gasper J. The relationship between school engagement and delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence. J Youth Adolesc. 2011;40(1):3–22. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9579-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suh A, Wagner C, Liu L. Enhancing User Engagement through Gamification. J Comput Inf Syst. 2018;58(3):204–13. doi:10.1080/08874417.2016.1229143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kock N, Moqbel M. Social networking site use, positive emotions, and job performance. J Comput Inf Syst. 2021;61(2):163–73. doi:10.1080/08874417.2019.1571457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dziuban C, Hartman J, Cavanagh TB, and Moskal PD. Blended courses as drivers of institutional transformation. In: Blended Learning across Disciplines: models for implementation. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global; 2011. p. 17–37.
   Google Scholar
• Blasco-Arcas L, Buil I, Hernández-Ortega B, Sese FJ. Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Comput Educ. 2013;62:102–10. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen PSD, Lambert AD, Guidry KR. Engaging online learners: the impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Comput Educ. 2010;54(4):1222–32. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim DH, Morris ML. Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. J Educ Technol Soc. 2009;12:282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbins SB, Lauver K, Le H, Davis D, Langley R, Carlstrom A. Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2004;130(2):261–88. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman BJ. Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):82–91. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouweneel E, Schaufeli WB, Le Blanc PM. Believe, and you will achieve: changes over time in self-efficacy, engagement, and performance: self-efficacy, engagement, and performance. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2013;5(2):225–47. doi:10.1111/aphw.12008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linnenbrink EA, Pintrich PR. The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading Writing Q. 2003;19(2):119–37. doi:10.1080/10573560308223.
   Google Scholar
• Chen I-S. Computer self-efficacy, learning performance, and the mediating role of learning engagement. Comput Human Behav. 2017;72:362–70. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.059.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim DH, Kim H. Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning application. J Educ Technol Syst. 2003;31(4):423–39. doi:10.2190/0LW0-KE8X-MDYH-X27F.
   Google Scholar
• Eastin MS, LaRose R. Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. JCMC. 2000;6:0–0.
   Google Scholar
• D’Ambra J, Wilson CS, Akter S. Continuance of E-textbook use by tertiary students: a qualitative approach. J Comput Inf Syst. 2020;60(3):223–32. doi:10.1080/08874417.2018.1456987.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McBrien JL, Cheng R, Jones P. Virtual spaces: employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn. 2009;10:3. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605.
   Google Scholar
• Sims R, Dobbs G, Hand T. Enhancing quality in online learning: scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Educ. 2002;23(2):135–48. doi:10.1080/0158791022000009169.
   Google Scholar
• Sims R. Promises of interactivity: aligning learner perceptions and expectations with strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Educ. 2003;24(1):87–103. doi:10.1080/01587910303050.
   Google Scholar
• Kang M, Im T. Factors of learner-instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment: factors of learner-instructor interaction. J Comput Assist Learn. 2013;29(3):292–301. doi:10.1111/jcal.12005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng YM. Extending the expectation-confirmation model with quality and flow to explore nurses’ continued blended e-learning intention. Inf Technol People. 2014;27(3):230–58. doi:10.1108/ITP-01-2013-0024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelo R, McCarthy R. A pedagogy to develop effective virtual teams. J Comput Inf Syst. 2021;61(5):450–57. doi:10.1080/08874417.2020.1717396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao LF. A flow theory perspective on learner motivation and behavior in distance education. Distance Educ. 2006;27(1):45–62. doi:10.1080/01587910600653215.
   Google Scholar
• Shernoff DJ, Csikszentmihalyi M, Schneider B, and Shernoff ES. Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. In: Applications of flow in human development and education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2014. p. 475–94.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang D. Interactive multimedia-based E-learning: a study of effectiveness. Am J Distance Educ. 2005;19(3):149–62. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_3.
   Google Scholar
• Renaud K, and Van Biljon J. Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: a qualitative study. In: Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries: riding the wave of technology. Wilderness, South Africa: ACM, 2008. p. 210–19.
   Google Scholar
• Kankanhalli A, Pee LG, Tan GW, Chhatwal S. Interaction of individual and social antecedents of learning effectiveness: a study in the IT research context. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 2011;59(1):115–28. doi:10.1109/TEM.2011.2144988.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong E, Mason E, Peng Y, Lee N. Effects of homework motivation and worry anxiety on homework achievement in mathematics and english. Educ Res Eval. 2015;21(7–8):491–514. doi:10.1080/13803611.2015.1131721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu H, Li S, Zheng J, Guo J. Medical students’ motivation and academic performance: the mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning engagement. Med Educ Online. 2020;25(1):1742964. doi:10.1080/10872981.2020.1742964.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hee OC, Ibrahim R, Kowang TO, Fei GC. Employee engagement as a mediator between transformational leadership and employee performance. Asian J Sci Res. 2018;11(3):441–48. doi:10.3923/ajsr.2018.441.448.
   Google Scholar
• Panigrahi R, Srivastava PR, Panigrahi PK. Effectiveness of e-learning: the mediating role of student engagement on perceived learning effectiveness. Inf Technol People 2020. ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). doi:10.1108/ITP-07-2019-0380.
   Google Scholar
• Sherry AC, Fulford CP, Zhang S. Assessing distance learners’ satisfaction with instruction: a quantitative and a qualitative measure. Am J Distance Educ. 1998;12(3):4–28. doi:10.1080/08923649809527002.
   Google Scholar
• Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(1):59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun JCY, Rueda R. Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy and self‐regulation: their impact on student engagement in distance education”. Br J Educ Technol. 2012;43(2):191–204. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan Z, Wang Y, Haggerty N. Why people benefit from e-learning differently: the effects of psychological processes on e-learning outcomes. Inf Manage. 2008;45(8):513–21. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babin BJ, Hair JF, Boles JS. Publishing research in marketing journals using structural equation modeling. J Marketing Theory Pract. 2008;16(4):279–86. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679160401.
   Google Scholar
• Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Smith D, Reams R, Hair JF Jr. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business researchers. J Family Bus Strat. 2014;5(1):105–15. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Marketing Theory Pract. 2011;19(2):139–52. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. doi:10.1177/002224378101800104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis: international edition. 5th. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson; 1998. Vol. 5. (3). 207–19.
   Google Scholar
• Batista-Foguet JM, Revilla M, Saris WE, Boyatzis R, Serlavós R. Reassessing the effect of survey characteristics on common method bias in emotional and social intelligence competencies assessment. Struct Equation Modell. 2014;21(4):596–607. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.934767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harman HH. Modern factor analysis. Illinois: University of Chicago press; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Cook RD. Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics. 1977;19:15–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberatore MJ, Wagner WP. Gender, performance, and self-efficacy: a Quasi-Experimental Field Study. J Comput Inf Syst. 2021;1–9. doi:10.1080/08874417.2021.1878476.
   Google Scholar
• Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dinther M, Dochy F, Segers M. Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educ Res Rev. 2011;6(2):95–108. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.10.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar