A comparative analysis of blended learning and traditional instruction: Effects on academic motivation and learning outcomes

Abstract

The correlational research study aims to examine how blended learning affects academic motivation and achievement. The objectives of the study are to assess students’ opinions on the current level of blended learning, teachers’ practice of blended instruction, the benefits of blended learning, its impact on academic motivation and learning outcomes, and factors influencing blended learning to determine how instructors’ methods influence students’ academic motivation and learning results. The study includes all Bachelor of Science students from various public and private institutions in the Faisalabad Division. Quantitative data from 400 students were collected from four selected institutions. A closed-ended, customized 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was used to collect data. The reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed through expert comments and pilot testing, with a reliability score of (= .97). Data were collected via Google Forms and researcher visits. Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to analyze the collected data and answer the research questions. The findings of the study indicate that students somewhat agreed with the current blended learning environment, and strongly agreed with variables such as instructors’ blended instruction techniques, the benefits of blended learning, and factors influencing blended learning. Blended learning had statistically significant positive effects on academic motivation and learning outcomes. The findings suggest improving the blended learning environment and instructors’ blended education methods to enhance university students’ academic motivation and learning outcomes.

Retraction: A comparative analysis of blended learning and traditional instruction: Effects on academic motivation and learning outcomes

“…Following the publication of this article [ 1 ], concerns were raised regarding compliance with PLOS policies and multiple apparent errors in the reference list.…”

“…The article [ 1 ] declared that ethics approval was obtained from Soochow University but did not mention approvals from Pakistan where the study was conducted. The first and corresponding authors stated that they sought permissions from Pakistani authorities before conducting the study.…”

“…The first and corresponding authors stated that they sought permissions from Pakistani authorities before conducting the study. The ethics approval document and Pakistani approval documents provided to PLOS were dated in January 2023, after the recruitment start date listed in the S1 Checklist [ 1 ]. The recruitment dates in the S1 Checklist (June 2022 –April 2023) differ from those listed in the Materials and Methods section (January 2023 –July 2023).…”