Instructional Design Using Constructivism and Blended Learning Approach to Enhance the Problem-Solving Ability of Undergraduate Students in China
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purposes of this research were the following: 1) to study the current state and problems in the problem-solving ability of first-year undergraduate students in China, and 2) to develop an instructional model using constructivism and a blended learning approach to enhance the problem-solving ability of undergraduate students in China. This study used a sequential mixed-methods approach, employing semi-structured interviews with five teachers who taught the “Situation and Policy Course" and questionnaires administered to 320 first-year undergraduates from Hebei Academy of Fine Arts and Hebei University of Communications, selected through purposive sampling. Interview data were analyzed using thematic content analysis, while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The research results showed as follows: 1) Students had problems combining theoretical knowledge with practical applications and lacked analytical and strategic planning skills. Current assessment practices focused primarily on memorization. However, students reported that blended learning had contributed to increased motivation, engagement, and flexibility. They also proposed the inclusion of group-based learning and diverse learning resources to improve skills for practical problem-solving. 2) The researchers used the findings to design an instructional model using constructivism and a blended learning approach. The instructional model consisted of six components: the introduction to the model, theoretical foundations, principles, objectives, procedures, and measurement and assessment. The procedures were divided into three phases with six steps: self-directed learning, group task preparation, group presentation, interactive discussion, peer/teacher feedback, and homework and reflexive learning. This model was verified by five experts, with an IOC of 0.8–1.0 and an average appropriateness of 4.35, which was interpreted as a high level of suitability. According to expert recommendations, this model was revised to improve student-centered learning principles, flexibility, and orientation. Ultimately, these results support the effective development of real-world problem-solving skills.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions appearing in the Journal it is the responsibility of the author of the article, and does not constitute the view and responsibility of the editorial team.
References
Best, J. W. (1977). Research in Education. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). The MIT Press.
Lai, T., Xie, C., Ruan, M., Wang, Z., Lu, H., & Fu, S. (2023) Influence of artificial intelligence in education on adolescents’ social adaptability: The mediatory role of social support. PLoS ONE, 18(3), e0283170. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283170
Liu, R., Chai, Y., & Wei, X. (2024). Engaging student engagement in blended learning environments through integration of small private online courses. Proceedings of the 2024 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), 274-278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET61814.2024.00061
Nurhuda, A., Al Khoiron, M. F., Azami, Y. S., & Ni’mah, S. J. (2023). Constructivism learning theory in education: Characteristics, steps and learning models. Research in Education and Rehabilitation, 6(2), 234-242. https://doi.org/10.51558/2744-1555.2023.6.2.234
O’Neill, G., & Padden, L. (2021). Diversifying assessment methods: Barriers, benefits and enablers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(4), 398-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1880462
Pozzi, F. E., Appollonio, I., Ferrarese, C., & Tremolizzo, L. (2023). Can traditional board games prevent or slow down cognitive impairment? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease: JAD, 95(3), 829–845. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-230473
Rosero Rojas, J. A., Ocampo Marulanda, J. A., Iparraguirre Contreras, J. R., & Gonzales Díaz, M. L. (2024). Assessing the impact of collaborative learning on the acquisition of complex problem-solving skills in the context of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology Perceptions, 20(S7), 1015-1024. https://doi.org/10.62441/nano-ntp.vi.1326
Rusmin, L., Misrahayu, Y., Pongpalilu, F., Radiansyah, R., & Dwiyanto, D. (2024). Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills in the 21st Century. Journal of Social Science, 1(5), 144-162. https://doi.org/10.59613/svhy3576
Tan, C. (2016). Constructivism and pedagogical reform in China: Issues and challenges. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14(2), 238-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2015.1105737
Vermeulen, E. J., & Volman, M. L. L. (2024). Promoting Student Engagement in Online Education: Online Learning Experiences of Dutch University Students. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29(2), 941-961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09704-3
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind In Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Zhao, Y., Lin, S., Liu, J., Zhang, J., & Yu, Q. (2021). Learning contextual factors, student engagement, and problem-solving skills: A Chinese perspective. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 49(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9796
