EXPLORING THE BEHAVIORAL TRAITS OF CRIMINOLOGY STUDENTS TOWARDS BLENDED LEARNING

Charles Murley O. Alfeche, Dearyl Jhay T. Anticamara, Christian Joshua M. Arpon, Exequiel R. Gono Jr.

Abstract


This study examines the behavioral traits of University of Mindanao criminology students with reference to blended learning using a mixed-method approach supported by exploratory factor analysis. The study identifies the key mindsets influencing students' interactions with blended learning environments, drawing on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and the theory of planned behavior. A total of 150 students participated in the quantitative survey, which was complemented by qualitative interviews with ten carefully selected respondents. The five primary factors that were shown to have an impact on students' behavior were decreased motivation and engagement, adaptability and self-regulation, reliance on digital resources, emotional difficulties and social disconnection. The findings emphasize the importance of removing technological disparities, promoting dynamic and flexible learning settings, and enhancing student-teacher involvement to optimize blended learning for criminology education. The study offers useful information for educators and organizations seeking to improve their instructional strategies and student support systems in blended learning settings. The study concludes that knowledge of students’ behaviors, perceptions, and challenges in blended learning contexts is necessary to improve educational outcomes. These discoveries have important implications for educators and institutions because they highlight the need to develop adaptable, student-centered, and technologically supportive educational practices. By tackling this problems, educational institutions and organizations can raise student satisfaction, enhance academic achievement, and increase the effectiveness of blended learning.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


blended learning, criminology education, behavioral traits, student engagement, learning environment

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adhikari, J., Mathrani, A., & Parsons, D. (2016). Bring your own devices classroom: Issues of digital divides in teaching and learning contexts. Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference (ASCILITE 2016). https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.02488

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2

Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3

Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2020). Adaptability to a sudden transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Understanding the challenges for students. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110271

Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.01.003

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/209835856_Best_Practices_in_Exploratory_Factor_Analysis_Four_Recommendations_for_Getting_the_Most_From_Your_Analysis

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Designing_and_Conducting_Mixed_Methods_R.html?id=eTwmDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Deng, W., & El Hag, A. (2024). The double digital divide: Examining disparities in access and skills among underserved college students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 35(3), 377–389. https://jise.org/Volume35/n3/JISE2024v35n3pp377-389.pdf

Dovetail Editorial Team (2023). What Is Purposive Sampling? Technique, Examples & FAQs. Dovetail. https://dovetail.com/research/purposive-sampling/emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Fabito, B., Trillanes, A., & Sarmiento, J. (2020). Barriers and challenges of computing students in an online learning environment: Insights from one Philippine university. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.02121

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between

Jost, N., Fast, E., McDonnell, M., & Munoz, J. (2021). The role of digital equity in remote learning during COVID-19. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09955-8

Kagee, A & Freeman, M. (2023). Mental health and physical health. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99967-0.00085-5

Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.10.001

Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between student characteristics, design features, and outcomes. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.001

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009

Nikolopoulou, K., & Zacharis, N. Z. (2023). Blended learning implementation in higher education: Teachers’ views, practices, and challenges. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 1121–1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11243-4

Nortvig, A., Peterson, A., & Balle, S. (2018). A Literature Review of the Factors Influencing E-learning and Blended Learning in Relation to Learning Outcome, Student Satisfaction and Engagement. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1855

Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701

Sankar, S., Fadhel, K., & Rashed, A. (2022). Blended learning in higher education: Faculty readiness and challenges. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 17(13), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i13.31305

Stone, C., & Springer, M. (2019). Interactivity, connectedness, and ‘teacher-presence’: Engaging and retaining students online. The Internet and Higher Education, 40, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.002

Topping, K., Douglas, G., Robertson, D., & Ferguson, J. (2022). Online and blended learning in higher education: Impact on student engagement, satisfaction and performance. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(6), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2083068

Topping, K., Douglas, W., Robertson, D., & Ferguson, N. (2022). Online formative assessment in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1935549

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., and Xu, X. (2016). Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2800121

Villanueva, J., Redmond, P., & Galligan, L. (2022). Manifestations of cognitive presence in blended learning classes of the Philippine K-12 system. Online Learning, 26(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.302

Yu, Z., Chen, J., & Wang, M. (2020). Factors influencing students’ satisfaction and performance in blended learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09651-8

Yulianti, K., & Sulistiyawati, I. (2020). Blended learning to improve students’ motivation in learning. In Proceedings of the 5th Progressive and Fun Education International Conference (Vol. 473, pp. 397–402). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200827.118

Zhao, Y., Pinto Llorente, A. M., & Sánchez Gómez, M. C. (2021). Digital competence in higher education research: A systematic literature review. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(6), 745–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1853555




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v12i10.6207

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2025 Charles Murley O. Alfeche, Dearyl Jhay T. Anticamara, Christian Joshua M. Arpon, Exequiel R. Gono Jr.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2026. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).