You are here:

An Investigation on Individual Students’ Perceptions of Interest Utilizing a Blended Learning Approach

, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong ; , City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

International Journal on E-Learning Volume 9, Number 2, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


Research has established that individual student interest has a positive effect on learning and academic achievement. However, little is known about the impact of a blended learning ap-proach on individual student interest and whether combinations of online and face-to-face learning activities significantly enhance student interest. This paper assesses the effect of blended learning on perceived individual student interest, utilizing a blend of online and face-to-face discussions. The study employed a quasi-experimental design consisting of two differ-ent treatment groups, online discussions versus face-to-face discussions. Data were analyzed using the t-test technique. Results from the study suggest that there was no statistical differ-ence in subjects’ perception of interest in both the online and face-to-face discussions. How-ever, from observation, subjects in the online discussions were eager to engage in textual dia-logue and therefore, participated more in the discussions compared to the face-to-face discussions.


Shroff, R. & Vogel, D. (2010). An Investigation on Individual Students’ Perceptions of Interest Utilizing a Blended Learning Approach. International Journal on E-Learning, 9(2), 279-294. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 17, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
  2. Bleed, R. (2001). A hybrid campus for a new millennium. Educause Review, 36(1), 16-24.
  3. Bonk, C., & Graham, C. (2005). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
  4. Bosworth, K., & Hamilton, S.J. (1994). Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and effective techniques. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
  5. Boyle, T. (2005). A dynamic, systematic method for developing blended learning. Education, Communication and Information, Special Issue on Blended Learning, 5(3), 221-232.
  6. Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Pickard, P. (2003). Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 165-178.
  7. Cochran, W.G. (1963). Sampling techniques (2ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
  8. Collins, A. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In Idol, L. And B.F. Jones (eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  9. Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
  10. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement. In A.K. Boggiano, & Pittman, T.S. (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective. (pp. 77-114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Dede, C. (1996). Emerging technologies in distance education for business. Journal of Education for Business, 71(4), 197-204.
  12. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin C.
  13. Dziuban, C.D., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004). Blended learning. Educause Center for Applied Individual Students’ Perceptions of Interest Utilizing a Blended Learning Approach 293
  14. Edelson, D.C., Pea, R.D., & Gomez, L. (1995). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  15. Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
  16. Harp, S.F., & Mayer, R.E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92-102.
  17. Harter, S., & Connell, J.P. (1984). A model of children's achievement and related selfperceptions of competence, control and motivation orientation. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 3, 219-250.
  18. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, and A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  19. Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (1998). Situational interest and learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seeon-Conference on interest and gender, Kiel, Germany.
  20. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research.
  21. Hiltz, S.R. (1990). Collaborative learning: The virtual classroom approach. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 17(10), 59-65.
  22. Iran-Nejad, A. (1987). Cognitive and affective causes of interest and liking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 120-130.
  23. Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Publishing.
  24. Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Hg.), The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  25. Leidner, D.E., & Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 265-291.
  26. Malone, T. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 3, 333-369.
  27. Malone, T., & Lepper, M. (1987). Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In Aptitude, Learning and Instruction, Volume 3, Cognitive and Affective Process Analyses. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  28. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424-436.
  29. Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.
  30. Murphy, P.K., & Alexander, P.A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53.
  31. Novak, G., Gavrin, A., Christian, W., & Patterson, E. (1999). Just-in-time teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. New York: Prentice Hall Series in Educational Innovation.
  32. Ocker, R., & Yaverbaum, G.J. (2002). Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conferencing settings. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 427-448.
  33. Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C. (2003). Blended learning environments definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 43(3), 227-233.
  34. Parker, L., & Lepper, M. (1992). The effects of fantasy contexts on children's learning and motivations; making learning more fun. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 625-633.
  35. Ranwez, S., Leidig, T., & Crampes, M. (2000). Formalization to improve lifelong learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(3/4), 389-409.
  36. Reeve, J., & Deci, E. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 57-71.
  37. Renninger, K.A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J.M. Harakiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. New York: Academic Press.
  38. Ryan, R.M. (1994). The Nature of the self in autonomy and relatedness. In J. Strauss& G.R. Goethals (Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 208-238). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  39. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, D.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
  40. Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257-279.
  41. Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional. London: Kogan Page.
  42. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K.M., & Deci, E.L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260.
  43. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on Blended Learning in Higher Education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94.
  44. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.
  45. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  46. Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The

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