EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 594 (2024) E3S Web Conf., 594 (2024) 05012 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 594, 2024
2nd International Conference on Environment and Smart Society (ICEnSO 2024)
Article Number 05012
Number of page(s) 21
Section Smart Education University Learning
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202459405012
Published online 22 November 2024
  1. N. Hockly and G. Dudeney, “Current and Future Digital Trends in ELT,” RELC Journal, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 164–178, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1177/0033688218777318. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. H. Junn, “L2 communicative competence analysis via synchronous computermediated communication (SCMC) as an alternative to formal classrooms,” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 15–31, 2023, doi: 10.1080/17501229.2021.1895802. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. A. Presbitero, “Foreign language skill, anxiety, cultural intelligence and individual task performance in global virtual teams: A cognitive perspective,” Journal of International Management, vol. 26, no. 2, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2019.100729. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Q. Ma, “A multi-case study of university students’ language-learning experience mediated by mobile technologies: a socio-cultural perspective,” Comput Assist Lang Learn, vol. 30, no. 3–4, pp. 183–203, May 2017, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1301957. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. M. A. Qureshi, A. Khaskheli, J. A. Qureshi, S. A. Raza, and S. Q. Yousufi, “Factors affecting students’ learning performance through collaborative learning and engagement,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 2371–2391, 2023, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1884886. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. S. Kaur Bansal, R. kumar Sharma, R. Kumar Jain, V. Chaturvedi, and A. Sharma, “Significance And Advancement Of The Educational Technology: Holistic Development Of Learners In The Digital Age,” Theory and Practice, vol. 2024, no. 5, pp. 6088–6095, 2024, doi: 10.53555/kuey.v30i5.3904. [Google Scholar]
  7. A. Raes, L. Detienne, I. Windey, and F. Depaepe, “A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified,” Learning Environments Research, vol. 23, no. 3. Springer, pp. 269–290, Oct. 01, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. A. Bashir, S. Bashir, K. Rana, P. Lambert, and A. Vernallis, “Post-COVID-19 Adaptations; the Shifts Towards Online Learning, Hybrid Course Delivery and the Implications for Biosciences Courses in the Higher Education Setting,” Front Educ (Lausanne), vol. 6, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.711619. [Google Scholar]
  9. K. Garg et al., “Hybrid Workshops During the COVID-19 Pandemic—Dawn of a New Era in Neurosurgical Learning Platforms,” in World Neurosurgery, Elsevier Inc., Jan. 2022, pp. e198–e206. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.09.132. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. A. Pregowska, K. Masztalerz, M. Garlińska, and M. Osial, “A worldwide journey through distance education—from the post office to virtual, augmented and mixed realities, and education during the covid-19 pandemic,” Education Sciences, vol. 11, no. 3. MDPI AG, Mar. 01, 2021. doi: 10.3390/educsci11030118. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Q. Li, Z. Li, and J. Han, “A hybrid learning pedagogy for surmounting the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in the performing arts education,” Educ Inf Technol (Dordr), vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 7635–7655, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10612-1. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. J. L. Martín-Núñez, J. L. Bravo-Ramos, S. Sastre-Merino, I. Pablo-Lerchundi, A. C. Redondo, and C. Núñez-Del-río, “Teaching in Secondary Education Teacher Training with a Hybrid Model: Students’ Perceptions,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 14, no. 6, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14063272. [Google Scholar]
  13. P. Goodyear, “Design and co-configuration for hybrid learning: Theorising the practices of learning space design,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1045–1060, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12925. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sukiman, S. Haningsih, and P. Rohmi, “The pattern of hybrid learning to maintain learning effectiveness at the higher education level post-COVID-19 pandemic,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 243–257, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.11.1.243. [Google Scholar]
  15. T. M. Wut, J. Xu, S. W. Lee, and D. Lee, “University Student Readiness and Its Effect on Intention to Participate in the Flipped Classroom Setting of Hybrid Learning,” Educ Sci (Basel), vol. 12, no. 7, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.3390/educsci12070442. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. N. Sanpanich, “Investigating Factors Affecting Students’ Attitudes toward Hybrid Learning.” [Google Scholar]
  17. M. Perry, R. F. L. Azevedo, G. Henricks, R. W. Crues, and S. Bhat, “Learning From Online Instructional Videos Considering Video Presentation Modes, Technological Comfort, and Students Characteristics,” Int J Hum Comput Interact, 2024, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2024.2328914. [Google Scholar]
  18. W. H. Walters, “Survey design, sampling, and significance testing: Key issues,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 47, no. 3, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102344. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, California, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  20. J. R. Torres-Malca, V. J. Vera-Ponce, F. E. Zuzunaga-Montoya, J. E. Talavera, and J. A. De La Cruz-Vargas, “Content validity by expert judgment of an instrument to measure knowledge, attitudes and practices about salt consumption in the peruvian population,” Revista de la Facultad de Medicina Humana, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 273–279, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.25176/rfmh.v22i2.4768. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. J. Barbera, N. Naibert, R. Komperda, and T. C. Pentecost, “Clarity on Cronbach’s Alpha Use,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 98, no. 2. American Chemical Society, pp. 257–258, Feb. 09, 2021. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00183. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. S. L. Siedlecki, “Understanding Descriptive Research Designs and Methods,” Clinical Nurse Specialist, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 8–12, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1097/NUR.0000000000000493. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison, Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  24. D. Marcial, M. A. Launer, and D. E. Marcial, “Test-retest Reliability and Internal Consistency of the Survey Questionnaire on Digital Trust in the Workplace,” Solid State Technology, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 4369–4381, 2021, [Online]. Available: www.solidstatetechnology.us [Google Scholar]
  25. M. L. Bernacki, M. J. Greene, and N. G. Lobczowski, “A Systematic Review of Research on Personalized Learning: Personalized by Whom, to What, How, and for What Purpose(s)?,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 33, no. 4. Springer, pp. 1675–1715, Dec. 01, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09615-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. A. Shemshack and J. M. Spector, “A systematic literature review of personalized learning terms,” Smart Learning Environments, vol. 7, no. 1. Springer, Dec. 01, 2020. doi: 10.1186/s40561-020-00140-9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. D. Bennett, E. Knight, and J. Rowley, “The role of hybrid learning spaces in enhancing higher education students’ employability,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1188–1202, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12931. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. I. Noguera, L. Albó, and M. Beardsley, “University students’ preference for flexible teaching models that foster constructivist learning practices.” [Online]. Available: http://www.google.com/trends [Google Scholar]
  29. J. Xiao, H. Z. Sun-Lin, T. H. Lin, M. Li, Z. Pan, and H. C. Cheng, “What makes learners a good fit for hybrid learning? Learning competences as predictors of experience and satisfaction in hybrid learning space,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1203–1219, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12949. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. T. Gilead and G. Dishon, “Rethinking future uncertainty in the shadow of COVID 19: Education, change, complexity and adaptability,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 822–833, 2022, doi: 10.1080/00131857.2021.1920395. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. F. T. Dayagbil, D. R. Palompon, L. L. Garcia, and M. M. J. Olvido, “Teaching and Learning Continuity Amid and Beyond the Pandemic,” Front Educ (Lausanne), vol. 6, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.678692. [Google Scholar]
  32. M. Van Wart et al., “Integrating students’ perspectives about online learning: a hierarchy of factors,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 1, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-00229-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. F. Biwer et al., “Changes and Adaptations: How University Students Self-Regulate Their Online Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Front Psychol, vol. 12, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642593. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. R. Castro, “Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities,” Educ Inf Technol (Dordr), vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2523–2546, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. J. Singh, K. Steele, and L. Singh, “Combining the Best of Online and Face-to-Face Learning: Hybrid and Blended Learning Approach for COVID-19, Post Vaccine, & Post-Pandemic World,” Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 140–171, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1177/00472395211047865. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. J. Paul and F. Jefferson, “A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an Online vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course From 2009 to 2016,” Front Comput Sci, vol. 1, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. A. G. Manciaracina, “Educational technologies for hybrid learning contexts: A grid of 12 technological communication tools,” in 25th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, WMSCI 2021, International Institute of Informatics and Systemics, IIIS, 2021, pp. 119–124. doi: 10.54808/jsci.19.08.64. [Google Scholar]
  38. L. Detienne, A. Raes, and F. Depaepe, “Benefits, Challenges and Design Guidelines for Synchronous Hybrid Learning: A Systematic Literature Review”. [Google Scholar]
  39. M. Baptista. Nunes, Pedro. Isaias, and International association for development of the Information Society., “E-learning 2020 proceedings of the international conference,” IADIS, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  40. Dr. R. Birbal, Dr. M. Ramdass, and Mr. C. Harripaul, “Student Teachers’ Attitudes towards Blended Learning,” Journal of Education and Human Development, vol. 7, no. 2, 2018, doi: 10.15640/jehd.v7n2a2. [Google Scholar]
  41. F. Gulnaz, A. D. A. Althomali, and D. H. Alzeer, “A Gender-Based Study to Investigate Saudi Male and Female EFL Learners’ Satisfaction Towards the Effectiveness of Hybrid Learning,” Int J Engl Linguist, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 321, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.5539/ijel.v10n5p321. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. H. Ngo and A. Eichelberger, “College students’ attitudes toward ICT use for English learning,” International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), vol. 15, pp. 245–258, 2019. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.