Abstracts
Résumé
Les dispositifs d’enseignement hybride sont de plus en plus répandus dans l’enseignement supérieur. À notre connaissance, les facteurs responsables de leur efficacité sur les apprentissages ne sont pas clairement définis. Cet article a pour ambition, à travers une revue systématique de la littérature, de proposer des éléments de réponse à cette absence de connaissances. Nous présenterons un inventaire et une synthèse des éléments pédagogiques effectivement mis en place dans ce type de dispositif pour mettre en évidence les composantes pédagogiques en lien avec les performances des étudiants, selon la typologie de Burton et ses collaborateurs (2011). À cet égard, nous interrogeons quatre bases de données bibliographiques afin d’en extraire tous les documents (n = 1767) qui étudient l’enseignement hybride. Le corpus d’articles analysés comprend 21 études dans lesquelles sont comparés des dispositifs d’enseignement hybride à d’autres types d’enseignement (apprentissage en ligne et enseignement traditionnel). Un examen de ces documents met en lumière cinq composantes pédagogiques montrant un effet sur les apprentissages. Sans prétendre à une hiérarchisation de ces catégories, nous en proposons une discussion et une synthèse.
Mots-clés :
- enseignement hybride,
- enseignement supérieur,
- revue systématique,
- performances
Abstract
Blended learning is rapidly gaining popularity in higher education. To our knowledge, responsible factors for its effectiveness on learning do not seem clearly defined yet. This article aims, through a systematic review of the literature, to submit elements of response to this apparent lack of knowledge. We present an inventory and a synthesis of the pedagogical elements actually implemented in blended learning to highlight the pedagogical components related to student performance, according to the typology of Burton et al. (2011). In this regard, four bibliographic databases are being searched to extract all documents (n=1767) studying blended learning. The corpus of articles analyzed includes 21 different studies in which blended learning is compared to other types of educational methods (e-learning or traditional learning). An assessment of these documents highlights five educational components that show an impact on learning. Without claiming to rank them against each other, we put forward a discussion and a synthesis of these components.
Keywords:
- blended learning,
- higher education,
- systematic review,
- performances
Resumo
Os dispositivos de ensino híbrido estão cada vez mais difundidos no ensino superior. Tanto quanto sabemos, os fatores responsáveis pela sua eficácia na aprendizagem não estão claramente definidos. Este artigo tem como objetivo, por meio de uma revisão sistemática da literatura, propor elementos de resposta para esta ausência de conhecimentos. Apresentaremos um inventário e uma síntese dos elementos pedagógicos efetivamente implementados neste tipo de dispositivo para evidenciar os componentes pedagógicos ligados aos desempenhos dos estudantes, de acordo com a tipologia de Burton e dos seus colaboradores (2011). A este respeito, consultamos quatro bases de dados bibliográficos a fim de extrair todos os documentos (n = 1767) que estudam o ensino híbrido. O corpo de artigos analisados inclui 21 estudos nos quais os sistemas de ensino híbrido são comparados a outros tipos de ensino (aprendizagem online e ensino tradicional). Um exame destes documentos destaca cinco componentes pedagógicos que mostram um efeito nas aprendizagens. Sem pretender hierarquizar estas categorias, propomos uma discussão e uma síntese.
Palavras chaves:
- ensino híbrido,
- ensino superior,
- revisão sistemática,
- desempenhos
Appendices
Références
- Al-Qahtani, A. A. Y., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and e-learning on students’ achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220-234. doi : 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00490.x
- Álvarez, A., Martín, M., Fernández-Castro, I., & Urretavizcaya, M. (2013). Blending traditional teaching methods with learning environments : Experience, cyclical evaluation process and impact with MAgAdl. Computers & Education, 68, 129-140. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.006
- Aly, I. (2013). Performance in an online introductory course in a hybrid classroom setting. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(2), 85-99. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1013589.pdf
- Amadieu, F. et Tricot, A. (2014). Apprendre avec le numérique : mythes et réalités. Paris, France : Retz.
- Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. doi : 10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
- Bednall, T. C., & Kehoe, E. J. (2011). Effects of self-regulatory instructional aids on self-directed study. Instructional Science : An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 39(2), 205-226. doi : 10.1007/s11251-009-9125-6
- 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. doi : 10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
- Boelens, R., Van Laer, S., De Wever, B., & Elen, J. (2015). Blended learning in adult education : Towards a definition of blended learning. Gand, Belgique : Université de Gand. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-6905076
- Boelens, R., Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2018). The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education : Instructors’ views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning. Computers & Education, 120, 197-212. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.009
- Bortnik, B., Stozhko, N., Pervukhina, I., Tchernysheva, A., & Belysheva, G. (2017). Effect of virtual analytical chemistry laboratory on enhancing student research skills and practices. Research in Learning Technology, 25. doi : 10.25304/rlt.v25.1968
- Botts, R. T., Carter, L., & Crockett, C. (2018). Using the blended learning approach in a quantitative literacy course. PRIMUS, 28(3), 236-265. doi : 10.1080/10511970.2017.1371264
- Buchs, C., Lehraus, K. et Crahay, M. (2012). Coopération et apprentissage. Dans M. Crahay (dir.), L’école peut-elle être juste et efficace ? (pp. 421-454). Bruxelles, Belgique : De Boeck. Repéré à https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:27711
- Burton, R., Borruat, S., Charlier, B., Coltice, N., Deschryver, N., Docq, F., … Villiot-Leclercq, E. (2011). Vers une typologie des dispositifs hybrides de formation en enseignement supérieur. Distances et savoirs, 9(1), 69-96. doi : 10.3166/ds.9.69-96
- Calone, A. et Lafontaine, D. (2018). Feedback normatif vs feedback élaboré : quel impact sur la performance et le sentiment de contrôlabilité des élèves ? Évaluer : Journal international de recherche en éducation et formation, 4(2), 47-76. Repéré à http://journal.admee.org/index.php/ejiref/article/view/156/86
- Cartier, S. C., Butler, D. L. et Janosz, M. (2007). L’autorégulation de l’apprentissage par la lecture d’adolescents en milieu défavorisé. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 33(3), 601-622. doi : 10.7202/018960ar
- Charlier, B., Deschryver, N. et Peraya, D. (2006). Apprendre en présence et à distance. Distances et savoirs, 4(4), 469-496. Repéré à https://www.cairn.info/revue-distances-et-savoirs-2006-4-page-469.htm
- Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 283-292. doi : 10.3102/0013189X16656615
- Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations : How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182. doi : 10.1016/0364-0213(89)90002-5
- Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2005). Multiple-try feedback and higher-order learning outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(3), 239. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/63335
- Cortizo, J. L., Rodríguez, E., Vijande, R., Sierra, J. M., & Noriega, A. (2010). Blended learning applied to the study of mechanical couplings in engineering. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1006-1019. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.006
- Dabbagh, N., Bass, R., Bishop, M., Costelloe, S., Cummings, K., Freeman, B., … Wilson, S. J. (2019). Using technology to support postsecondary student learning : A practice guide for college and university administrators, advisors, and faculty. Washington, DC : Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse/National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). Retrieved at https://whatworks.ed.gov
- Darnon, C., Buchs, C. et Butera, F. (2006). Apprendre ensemble : but de performance et but de maîtrise au sein des interactions sociales entre apprenants. Dans B. Galand et É. Bourgeois (dir.), (Se) Motiver à apprendre (pp. 125-134). Paris, France : PUF.
- Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration : Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837. doi : 10.1080/095006900412293
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits : Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. doi : 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
- Deegan, D., Wims, P., & Pettit, T. (2016). Practical skills training in agricultural education : A comparison between traditional and blended approaches. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 22(2), 145-161. doi : 10.1080/1389224X.2015.1063520
- Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model : Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers & Education, 51(1), 474-483. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.006
- Demirer, V., & Sahin, I. (2013). Effect of blended learning environment on transfer of learning : An experimental study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 518-529. doi : 10.1111/jcal.12009
- Deschacht, N., & Goeman, K. (2015). The effect of blended learning on course persistence and performance of adult learners : A difference-in-differences analysis. Computers & Education, 87, 83-89. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.020
- Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments : Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557-573. doi : 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00476.x
- Doyle, W. (1986). Paradigmes de recherches sur l’efficacité des enseignants. Dans M. Crahay et D. Lafontaine (dir.), L’art et la science de l’enseignement (pp. 435-481). Bruxelles, Belgique : Labor.
- Duplessis, P. et Ballarini-Santonocito, I. (2007). Petit dictionnaire des concepts info-documentaires : approche didactique à l’usage des enseignants documentalistes. Repéré à https://www.reseau-canope.fr/savoirscdi/fileadmin/fichiers_auteurs/PDF_manuels/dicoduplessis.pdf
- Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn’t work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 465-470. doi : 10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.015
- Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education : A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333-2351. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
- Goette, W. F., Delello, J. A., Schmitt, A. L., Sullivan, J. R., & Rangel, A. (2017). Comparing delivery approaches to teaching abnormal psychology : Investigating student perceptions and learning outcomes. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16(3), 336-352. doi : 10.1177/1475725717716624
- Harker, M., & Koutsantoni, D. (2005). Can it be as effective ? Distance versus blended learning in a web-based EAP programme. ReCALL, 17(2), 197-216. doi : 10.1017/S095834400500042X
- Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2014). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation : The role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 269-290. doi : 10.1080/01443410.2013.785384
- Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 713-729. doi : 10.1002/acp.1345
- Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. doi : 10.3102/003465430298487
- Huang, E. Y., Lin, S. W., & Huang, T. K. (2012). What type of learning style leads to online participation in the mixed-mode e-learning environment ? A study of software usage instruction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 338-349. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.003
- Hung, I.-C., Kinshuk, & Chen, N.-S. (2018). Embodied interactive video lectures for improving learning comprehension and retention. Computers & Education, 117, 116-131. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.005
- Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638-654. doi : 10.1111/jcal.12107
- King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303-323. doi : 10.3102/00028312029002303
- Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes : The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 665-702. doi : 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00050.x
- Laveault, D. (2007). De la « régulation » au « réglage » : élaboration d’un modèle d’autoévaluation des apprentissages. Dans L. Allal et L. Mottier Lopez (dir.), Régulation des apprentissages en situation scolaire et en formation (pp. 207-234). Bruxelles, Belgique : De Boeck Supérieur. Repéré à https://www.cairn.info/regulation-des-apprentissages-en-situation-scolair--9782804153144-page-207.htm
- Lebrun, M., Docq, F. et Smidts, D. (2010). Analyse des effets de l’enseignement hybride à l’université : détermination de critères et d’indicateurs de valeurs ajoutées. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 7(3), 48-59. doi : 10.7202/1003563ar
- Liu, Q., Peng, W., Zhang, F., Hu, R., Li, Y., & Yan, W. (2016). The effectiveness of blended learning in health professions : Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(1), e2. doi : 10.2196/jmir.4807
- Ma, W. W. K., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Understanding online knowledge sharing : An interpersonal relationship perspective. Computers & Education, 56(1), 210-219. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.004
- Makarem, S. (2015). Using online video lectures to enrich traditional face-to-face courses. International Journal of Instruction, 8(2), 155-164. doi : 10.12973/iji.2015.8212a
- McCutcheon, K., Lohan, M., Traynor, M., & Martin, D. (2015). A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(2), 255-270. doi : 10.1111/jan.12509
- McCutcheon, K., O’Halloran, P., & Lohan, M. (2018). Online learning versus blended learning of clinical supervisee skills with pre-registration nursing students : A randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 82, 30-39. doi : 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.02.005
- McKenzie, W. A., Perini, E., Rohlf, V., Toukhsati, S., Conduit, R., & Sanson, G. (2013). A blended learning lecture delivery model for large and diverse undergraduate cohorts. Computers & Education, 64, 116-126. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.009
- Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning : A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47. Retrieved from https://www.sri.com/work/publications/effectiveness-online-and-blended-learning-meta-analysis-empirical-literature
- Merkt, M., Weigand, S., Heier, A., & Schwan, S. (2011). Learning with videos vs. learning with print : The role of interactive features. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 687-704. doi : 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.03.004
- Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation. (2019). Initiatives d’excellence en formations innovantes. Paris, France : Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation. Repéré à https://idefi-anr-2019.fr/les-idefi/
- Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, T. P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses : The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. doi : 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
- Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can “blended learning” be redeemed ? E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 17-26. doi : 10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.17
- Rakoczy, K., Schütze, B., Klieme, E., Blum, W., & Hochweber, J. (2013). Written feedback in mathematics : Mediated by students’ perception, moderated by goal orientation. Learning and Instruction, 27, 63-73. doi : 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.002
- Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory : Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181-210. doi : 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
- Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere : An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450-461. doi : 10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450
- Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). The application of differentiated instruction in postsecondary environments : Benefits, challenges, and future directions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 307-323. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/ijtlhe366.pdf
- Sarrazin, P. G. et Trouilloud, D. (2006). Comment motiver les élèves à apprendre ? Les apports de la théorie de l’autodétermination. Dans P. Dessus et E. Gentaz (dir.), Comprendre les apprentissages : sciences cognitives et éducation (pp. 123-141). Paris, France : Dunod. Repéré à https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284600580_Comment_motiver_les_eleves_a_apprendre_Les_apports_de_la_theorie_de_l’autodetermination
- Schwonke, R., Ertelt, A., Otieno, C., Renkl, A., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. J. C. M. (2013). Metacognitive support promotes an effective use of instructional resources in intelligent tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 23, 136-150. doi : 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.003
- Singaravelu, G. (2010). Hybrid learning in enhancing communicative skill in English. Journal of Educational Technology, 7(1), 14-18. Retrieved from : https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098376.pdf
- Slavin, R. E. (1995). Best evidence synthesis : An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48(1), 9-18. doi : 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-A
- Traphagan, T., Kucsera, J. V., & Kishi, K. (2010). Impact of class lecture webcasting on attendance and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 19-37. doi : 10.1007/s11423-009-9128-7
- van den Boom, G., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment : Effects on students’ self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 551-567. doi : 10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.001
- van der Meij, H., & van der Meij, J. (2014). A comparison of paper-based and video tutorials for software learning. Computers & Education, 78, 150-159. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.003
- van Niekerk, J., & Webb, P. (2016). The effectiveness of brain-compatible blended learning material in the teaching of programming logic. Computers & Education, 103, 16-27. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.008
- Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education : A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17-28. doi : 10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.002
- Wentao, C., Jinyu, Z., & Zhonggen, Y. (2016). Learning outcomes and affective factors of blended learning of English for library science. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 12(3), 13-25. doi : 10.4018/ijicte.2016070102
- York, R. O. (2008). Comparing three modes of instruction in a graduate social work program. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), 157-172. doi : 10.5175/jswe.2008.200700031
- Zhang, W., & Zhu, C. (2018). Comparing learning outcomes of blended learning and traditional face-to-face learning of university students in ESL courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 17(2), 251-273.