Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Student enrollment, motivation and learning performance in a

T
blended learning environment: The mediating effects of social,
teaching, and cognitive presence
Kris M.Y. Lawa, Shuang Gengb,∗, Tongmao Lic
a
School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
b
Department of Management Science, ShenZhen University, Shenzhen, China
c
Department of Business Administration, ShenZhen University, Shenzhen, China

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: This study investigated the effects of student enrolment and learning motivation on learning
Computer-mediated communication performance in a blended learning setting at the university level with social, teaching, and
Improving classroom teaching learning presence as mediating factors. Data samples were collected from 96 students taking
Media in education blended learning course and 111 students taking a traditional course. The comparison between
Teaching/learning strategy
these two groups does not show a significant difference in the three presences and learning
performance. Structural equation modelling results revealed that student enrolment has a posi-
tive impact on social presence and cognitive presence. Enrolment also positively influences
learning performance through the above two presences. Learning motivation positively influence
social presence only. Learning motivation also plays a vital role in enhancing the enrolment but
does not directly influence learning performance in a blended learning setting. Teaching presence
was found to have direct positive impacts on the cognitive presence and social presence, and
indirect positive impacts on learning performance. These findings highlight the importance of
student enrolment and course design from the teaching perspective in a blended learning setting.

1. Introduction

Blended Learning (BL) combines online learning and offline face-to-face learning and facilitates free and open dialogue in the
Community of Inquiry (COI). COI involves teaching, social and cognitive presence, offering a convenient instrument to assess the
quality of online teaching (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). In the online learning environment, students have more flexibility in
deciding when, how and with what content and activities they engage in (Milligan & Littlejohn, 2014). Student enrolment represents
students' willingness to enrol in a particular course. For a student to enrol in a course, many motivating factors would take place.
Students’ willingness to enrol in a BL course represents the initial motivation to engage in the course, and also their commitment to
achieving learning goals. There have been some studies that investigated the learning effectiveness of students in the BL setting by
adopting the COI framework, but there still exists the need for new studies to be carried out with variables, such as the impacts of
student enrolment on learning outcomes and the mediating role of the social, teaching, and cognitive presences. This research sets out
to examine the impact of student enrolment and learning motivation on student learning effectiveness in the BL setting.
The subsequent sections of this paper first review the related literature that lays the theoretical foundation. Then the research

∗
Corresponding author. ShenZhen University, Nanhai Ave 3688, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518060, PR China.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Geng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.021
Received 12 September 2018; Received in revised form 19 February 2019; Accepted 28 February 2019
Available online 06 March 2019
0360-1315/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

hypotheses and data collection method are presented. After that, the results and findings are reported, and conclusions are drawn.

2. Literature review

2.1. Blended learning

With the broad adoption of Information and Communication Technology(ICT) to support the learning and teaching study in
higher education, the blended learning approach is well developed. Blended learning is a fundamental redesign that transforms the
structure of, and ways to, teaching and learning. Blended learning is defined as an instruction which takes place in a traditional
classroom setting augmented by computer-based or online activities that can replace classroom seat time (Garrison & Vaughan,
2008). Adoption of blended learning represents a restructuring of course design with the goal of enhancing engagement and ex-
tending access in online learning opportunities.
Previous studies show that integrating technology into teaching and learning can definitely improve access to information and
also the learning experience (Bai, Mo, Zhang, Boswell, & Rozelle, 2016; Darling-Aduana & Heinrich, 2018, Lui, Geng, & Law, 2017,
Lui, Geng, & Law, 2017). The blended learning approach has a significantly positive influence on learning performance, and it has
been proven that students' satisfaction was found to be higher in blended courses than the traditional classroom teaching (Black,
2002), and blended learning enhanced students’ learning process (Gunter, 2001; Sanders & Morrisonshetlar, 2001; Yildirim, 2005).
Students, nowadays prefer blended courses because of their greater time flexibility and convenience (Hogarth, 2010). Nevertheless,
blended learning design is a complicated topic, which involves da number of factors determining the effectiveness of a BL course. The
learning experience of students remains as a crucial part in BL course design, notably how the learning experience differs between a
traditional course and a BL course.

2.2. Student enrolment

Studies show that interaction between students and instructors is vital in any learning experience (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, &
Archer, 2001; Andresen, 2009; Eyal, 2012; Joo, Lim, & Kim, 2011). According to cognitive load theory, the effort engaged by learners
in finding information is a crucial component of learning performance, which implies that learners who do not actively engage in
information processing actively are liable to engage only in surface learning and achieving modest learning performance. Students
who are very keen enrol in a course tend to be more willing to engage in course activities and have a stronger interest in the subject
(Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003). Differing from other student learning attributes, such as student innovativeness that reflect individual
student differences during the learning process (Law & Geng, 2018), student enrolment reflects student readiness, willingness and
commitment before taking the course. Therefore, to examine its predictive influence on student learning processes and effectiveness
can provide necessary implications for course designers to adjust the course design accordingly.

2.3. Learning motivation

Ford (1992) defined the concept of learning motivation as an established pattern of pursuing goals, beliefs, and emotions. Mo-
tivation is something that energises, directs, and sustains behaviour allowing students to engage, point themselves in a particular
direction, and continue themselves exploring. (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Maehr & Meyer, 1997; Reeves, 2006).
Motivation is a vital factor in students' learning performance. It is not only a determinant of learning achievement but also should
be activated for every task (Weiner, 1990). There are two main types of learning motivation, which are intrinsic motivation and
extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is the dominant type in students’ learning in blended learning, and the intrinsically mo-
tivated students to finish tasks and show better performance than the extrinsically motivated students. Many studies emphasise the
importance of motivation due to its impacts on learning performance (Law & Breznik, 2017; Law & Geng, 2018; Law, Lee, & Yu, 2010;
Ngan & Law, 2015).

2.4. Community of inquiry

A community of Inquiry (CoI) is broadly defined as a group of individuals involved in knowledge formation and the process of
empirical inquiry into problematic situations (Garrison et al., 2000). The central construct of the COI framework is that educational
experience occurs at the confluence of three distinct types of presences, which are social, cognitive and teaching presences (Garrison
et al., 2000) as shown in Fig. 1.

2.4.1. Social presence

Social presence (SP) is defined as students' ability to relate to their classmates, have trust in their ability to communicate with
classmates, and to form personal and productive relationships within the class (Garrison, 2011). In order to fulfil the social presence,
the framework should provide open communication, group cohesion and useful personal connections. It also refers to the ability of
participants in a Community of Inquiry to let students express themselves socially and emotionally through any means of commu-
nication that is being used (Garrison et al., 2000). It creates a sense of belonging, supports freedom of expression, and sustains
cohesiveness, referred to as cognitive presence.

2
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

Fig. 1. The community of Inquiry (Garrison et al., 2000).

2.4.2. Cognitive presence

Cognitive presence (CP) is defined as students’ ability to construct meaning through discussion and reflection while working in a
community of inquiry (Garrison, 2011). It involves triggering event, exploration, integration of the reflection and interaction process
and resolution of learning. Cognitive presence in the Community of Inquiry exists in an environment that provides chances for
students to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical manner (Garrison et al., 2000).
This element contributes to COI due to its collaborative information exploration and creation (Garrison & Akyol, 2009).

2.4.3. Teaching presence

Teaching presence (TP) is defined as the design, facilitation, and direction of a class to ensure that students achieve meaningful
and worthwhile learning outcomes while working within a Community of Inquiry (Garrison, 2011). Teaching presence is critical in
establishing the curriculum, approaches of teaching, and facilitation methods. It brings social presence and cognitive presence to-
gether effectively and efficiently. Teaching presence can be a strong predictor of perceived learning and satisfaction of students with
the delivery medium (Arbaugh, 2007). In this study, we employ the social, cognitive, and teaching presence as dimensions to
represent the learning effectiveness of students and examine their interrelationships with other learning attributes.

2.5. Research questions

The BL environment offers a different setting with multiple media for teaching, communication, discussion and evaluation.
Student enrolment implies the initial motivation, willingness and commitment to a course at the beginning. These learning attributes
are supposed to have latent relationships with student learning behaviour. However, the influence of student enrolment on student
learning effectiveness (social, teaching, and cognitive presence) and learning outcome remains unexplored. To understand the
predictive influence of enrolment on learning performance, and the mediating role of social, teaching, and cognitive presence, several
research questions arise:

Q1. Does the student enrolment influence the learning outcome in a BL setting?
Q2. Does the social, teaching, and cognitive presence mediate the impacts of student enrolment on learning outcome in a BL setting?
Q3. Does learning motivation influence student enrolment, and the learning outcome, in a BL setting?

3. Hypotheses development

In recent years, the concept of learning communities has been proposed to depict the effectiveness of classroom learning en-
vironment. Based on this concept, the framework of the Community of Inquiry (COI) developed by Garrison et al. (2000) has been
widely used to examine and improve the learning effectiveness in asynchronous learning courses. Each of the three COI presences
represents a different dimension of a student learning experience. Therefore, the three presences are adopted as core constructs of
research hypotheses to answer our research questions. The hypothesised relationships between CoI and multiple learning attributes
are described and explained below.

3
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

3.1. Learning motivation and COI

Motivation is the deeper intention that exists in each learner and has a direction or goal. Bandura (1986) suggested that people are
proactive in engaging with the environment as a result of their self-beliefs. A learner's beliefs about capability are often a better
indicator of motivation and success than actual capability. Motivation corresponds to a set of physiological processes, which can
determine the direction and persistence of behaviours (Moos & Marroquin, 2010). A student with the goal of improving or developing
competence in a particular task or subject area will often seek help and reflection as an opportunity to learn.
While BL course setting provides flexibility and ease of access to online learning content, it may foster a lack of motivation of
students to complete learning tasks (Bennett, Bishop, Dalgarno, Waycott, & Kennedy, 2012 & Torrisi-Steele & Drew, 2013). Students
who are motivated have strong relationships with teachers and want to develop social relationships with peers (Patrick, Ryan, &
Kaplan, 2007; Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney, 2010). These students often have a more positive effect on school and may cope
with the digital learning environment and learning problems more effectively (Zimmergembeck & Locke, 2007). Therefore, to ex-
amine the impacts of motivation in BL learning environment, two hypotheses are developed:
H1. Learning motivation is positively related to student enrolment
H2. Learning motivation is positively related to COI.
H2a. Learning motivation is positively related to cognitive presence.
H2b. Learning motivation is positively related to teaching presence.
H2c. Learning motivation is positively related to social presence.

3.2. Student enrolment and COI

Previous research indicated that students' enrolment could lead to the development of COI through interaction among teachers
and other students in the online learning environment (Swan, 2001). Enrolment represents the initial motivation for students to
register and participate in the course; the higher the degree of enrolment, the stronger the tendency of the students to maintain the
learning experience. Enrolment in online learning sometimes requires students to be better prepared for learning than sitting and
listening in the classroom (Chen & Jones, 2007). Some studies have shown that enrolment not only supports learning but facilitates
social interaction among students (Andresen, 2009; Kehrwald, 2008; Swan & Shih, 2005), which creates opportunities to enhance
student collaboration (Hew & Cheung, 2013; Palmer, Holt, & Bray, 2008). Therefore, we postulated three more hypotheses:
H3. Enrolment is positively related to COI.
H3a. Enrolment is positively related to cognitive presence.
H3b. Enrolment is positively related to teaching presence.
H3c. Enrolment is positively related to social presence.

3.3. COI and learning performance

Students in a COI classroom take more personal responsibility and are more active in sharing multiple viewpoints. Through active
online interaction students and instructors co-create a CoI comprising three overlapping presences, including a social, cognitive, and
teaching presence (Akyol, Vaughan, & Garrison, 2011; Kozan & Richardson, 2014). Students share responsibility with instructors for
their leading and cooperate in learning; thus a “community of thinking” will eventually occur (Harpaz, 2005). The clarity of course
design, quality of interaction with instructors, and collaborations between students were associated with students' perceived learning
Swan (2001). The instructor's performance plays a leadership role and is more important than social and cognitive presences in some
specific teaching and learning context, such as engineering courses (Szeto, 2015). The COI framework provides an approach to
creating a collaborative and meaningful learning experience (Garrison et al., 2000). Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is developed as
showed below:
H4. COI is positively related to learning performance.
H4a. Cognitive presence is positively related to learning performance.
H4b. Teaching presence is positively related to learning performance.
H4c. Social presence is positively related to learning performance.
Therefore, a conceptual model composed of the above hypotheses is constructed, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

4
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

Fig. 2. Research model.

4. Data collection

4.1. Measurement instrument

The four sets of hypotheses were tested using a quantitative survey. We designed a list of questions associated with the factors in
our model (see Appendix 1). The first part consists of the items of student enrolment (EN), learning motivation (LM), social presence
(SP), teaching presence (TP), cognitive presence (CP), and learning performance (PERF). The second part consists of the personal
particulars of respondents, such as gender, discipline, and year of study.
The survey was developed by adopting the Community of Inquiry CoI framework and the previous works of Law et al. (2010).
There are three interdependent elements presented in the CoI framework which are the social presence, cognitive presence and
teaching presence (Garrison & Akyol, 2009).

4.2. Setting and participants

Data were collected among university students (undergraduates studying government-funded degree programs) in Hong Kong.
Students who study in Engineering with Management (EM) form the targeted group in this study. A total of 207 students majoring in
EM in the Hong Kong Polytechnic University completed the survey. All the students were at the undergraduate level undertaking the
same subject (Project Management) but of two different classes in the same semester (i.e. 2017 September to November). The two
classes are of the same syllabi and learning outcomes. One of the classes was designed by integrating blended learning sessions
(combination of both in class activities with online learning) throughout the first ten weeks (out of 13 weeks in the semester). There
were 96 valid samples received from Blended Learning (BL) students and 111 valid samples from NBL (non-Blended Learning) group.

4.3. Hypothesis testing method

The research model (Fig. 1) was tested using the partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural equation modelling (SEM). The
PLS has an advantage over other types of SEM, in that it involves no assumptions about the population or score measurement (Fornell
& Bookstein, 1982). PLS represents a family of alternating least squares algorithms, which extends the principal component and
canonical correlation analysis (Henseler, Jorg, Sarstedt & Marko, 2013). It consists of two sets of equations, referred to as an inner
model and an outer model. The first defines the relations between unobserved or latent variables. The outer model defines the
relations between a latent variable and its observed indicators. The PLS method in this study was applied using the SmartPLS
software.

4.4. Measurement model estimation

To ensure our study had good reliability and validity, preliminary tests which involved checking the unidimensionality of the six
parts of the construct (Enrolment, Learning motivation, Social presence, Cognitive presence, Teaching presence and Performance)
were taken.

5
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

Table 1
Unidimensionality of constructs.
Latent variable MVs Cronbach ’s alpha Dillon-Goldstein ’s rho Composite Reliability AVE

Enrolment (EN) 2 0.782 0.783 0.902 0.821

Learning Motivation(LM) 3 0.725 0.749 0.841 0.639
Social Presence(SP) 5 0.811 0.817 0.868 0.569
Cognitive Presence(CP) 6 0.879 0.881 0.908 0.623
Teaching Presence(TP) 5 0.835 0.850 0.882 0.600
Preference(PREF) 2 0.877 0.878 0.942 0.890

According to Sanchez (2013, p. 383), an acceptable value for factor loading is above 0.7, which indicates that the test term can
represent most of the latent variables. After applying the PLS method, the results show that item EN3, EN4 for engagement, LM3,
LM4, LM5, LM5, LM7 for learning motivation, SP3 for social presence, CP2 for the cognitive presence and PERF3 for performance
received lower loading than the required factor loading value of 0.7 were therefore removed.
After removing these unsuitable items, we tested the reliability and validity of all constructs using Cronbach's alpha, Dillon-
Goldsteim's rho, composite reliability and AVE. As shown in Table 1, the Cronbach's alpha and Dillon-Goldsteim's rho of all constructs
were much higher than 0.7, meeting the criterion of acceptable reliability suggested by Nunnally (1978). The composite reliability of
all constructs was beyond 0.8, far exceeding the required value 0.5 which is suggested by Chin and Gopal (1995). The AVEs were
above the minimum threshold of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), also showing the research has proven reliability and validity. Thus,
all of the constructs can be used in further analysis.
Furthermore, the convergent validity of the constructs was evaluated from the results of the outer model estimation (Table 2).
When the items were highly loaded (more than 0.7) on their associated factor, the reflective measures are considered to be reliable
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). After removing some unsuitable items, all the factor loadings were above 0.7, which is considered ac-
ceptable.
In this study, the discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the square root of the AVE for each construct with the
correlation between the construct and other constructs in the model. All constructs in the estimated model satisfied the criterion of
discriminant validity suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) (see Table 3).

4.5. Results

4.5.1. Student demographics

An overview of the participant information is shown below (Table 4). It can be concluded from the table that males make up a
more significant proportion which may be related to the nature of the major. The students are mostly above 20 years old in BL
learning group while there is almost no difference in the blended learning group in age.

Table 2
The outer model estimation.
Latent variable Manifest variables Outer weight Loading

Enrolment (EN) EN1 0.566 0.911

EN2 0.537 0.901
Learning Motivation (LM) LM1 0.343 0.761
LM2 0.384 0.815
LM8 0.519 0.821
Social Presence (SP) SP1 0.248 0.708
SP2 0.231 0.725
SP4 0.304 0.799
SP5 0.274 0.768
SP6 0.265 0.768
Cognitive Presence (CP) CP1 0.195 0.730
CP3 0.207 0.817
CP4 0.230 0.836
CP5 0.195 0.789
CP6 0.223 0.812
CP7 0.214 0.748
Teaching Presence (TP) TP1 0.192 0.725
TP2 0.230 0.774
TP3 0.253 0.717
TP4 0.287 0.837
TP5 0.320 0.814
Preference (PREF) PREF1 0.518 0.941
PREF2 0.542 0.946

6
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

Table 3
Correlation among construct scores.
Cognitive Presence Enrollment (EN) Learning Motivation Preference (PREF) Social Presence Teaching Presence
(CP) (LM) (SP) (TP)

Cognitive Presence (CP) 0.790

Enrolment (EN) 0.412 0.906
Learning Motivation(LM) 0.539 0.373 0.799
Preference (PREF) 0.571 0.293 0.415 0.944
Social Presence (SP) 0.692 0.247 0.466 0.285 0.754
Teaching Presence (TP) 0.619 0.275 0.455 0.390 0.674 0.775

Note: The boldface figures in the diagonal represent the square root of AVE figures.

Table 4
Demographic details of respondents.
Blended learning Non-blended learning

Gender Male 66 Male 64

Female 30 Female 47
Age 20 or below 47 20 or below 11
Above 20 49 Above 20 100
Total 96 111

4.5.2. Difference between groups

The mean scores for the six factors (Enrolment, Learning motivation, Social presence, Cognitive presence, teaching presence and
Preference) and their measurement items are presented in Table 5.
As seen from the table, the students in the blended learning group have higher scores for enrolment, social presence, teaching
presence and preference than those in the non-blended learning group, who perform better in learning motivation and cognitive
presence. What is also worth noticing is that the difference between the two groups is quite small.
To analyze the significance of the differences observed between the BL and NBL groups, independent sample t-test at a sig-
nificance level of 0.05, was carried out. The results obtained are shown in Table 6. As the results show, there are no significant
differences between the BL group and NBL group in all constructs.

4.5.3. PLS modelling results

PLS modelling was carried out among students in the BL group, as shown in Fig. 3. Except for the negative relationship between
cognitive presence and preference in the BL group, all path coefficients between latent variables in the structural model were positive
at a significance level of 0.001. We tested both direct and indirect effects among the six factors, and the results are presented in
Table 7 and Table 8.
Since PLS path modelling does not provide a widely acceptable global model fit (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle & Gudergan, 2017; Chin,
1998), we cautiously adopted Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) to assess the model fit. The SRMR values of both BL
group and NBL group are just below 0.08, which is acceptable according to Hair, Ringle, Sarstedt, and Gudergan (2017).

5. Discussion

5.1. Enrolment, cognitive presence, social presence, and learning performance

Enrolment is found to have a direct effect on the social and cognitive presence in this study, and an indirect effect on student
learning performance. In the blended learning setting, the initial willingness of students to enrol in the course drives them to interact
and communicate differently with other students. The enrolment of students indicates the initial motivation and commitment of
students. Students are self-committed to participate in learning and thinking, and they are self-initiated to interact with others in the
learning activities that positively and directly affect their learning performance. BL course designers, therefore, can employ the
student enrolment information as one of the critical measures to learn more about the students’ level of commitment and initial
motivation and make corresponding adjustments to facilitate student learning effectively.

5.2. Learning motivation, enrolment and social presence

Learning motivation is a crucial factor for active learning (Law & Breznik, 2017; Law et al., 2010; Law & Geng, 2018; Ngan & Law,
2015), and a determinant for students' achievement and performance (Weiner, 1990). The findings in this study show that learning
motivation can positively enhance student willingness to enrol in a course. Students with stronger learning motivation also tend to
engage in course tasks and group activities more actively. From this perspective, learning motivation improves learning effectiveness
through its positive and direct effect on social presence and reflects on enrolment. Learning motivation of students can be induced by

7
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

Table 5
Overall statistical results.
Mean Score(S.D.) BL Mean(S.D.) NBL Mean(S.D.)

EN 3.68(0.30) 3.69(0.35) 3.68(0.26)

EN1 3.36(0.57) 3.46(0.65) 3.28(0.49)
EN2 3.68(0.49) 3.64(0.51) 3.72(0.48)
EN3 3.79(0.96) 3.78(0.97) 3.80(0.96)
EN4 3.90(0.74) 3.88(0.76) 3.93(0.72)
LM 3.61(0.19) 3.60(0.22) 3.62(0.17)
LM1 3.79(0.48) 3.72(0.52) 3.86(0.43)
LM2 3.81(0.44) 3.81(0.43) 3.81(0.45)
LM3 3.53(0.55) 3.56(0.56) 3.50(0.54)
LM4 3.61(0.48) 3.66(0.46) 3.57(0.50)
LM5 3.61(0.57) 3.66(0.52) 3.58(0.61)
LM6 3.38(0.67) 3.38(0.60) 3.38(0.75)
LM7 3.63(0.57) 3.54(0.59) 3.71(0.55)
LM8 3.54(0.64) 3.51(0.53) 3.56(0.74)
SP 3.51(0.21) 3.53(0.30) 3.49(0.14)
SP1 3.48(0.45) 3.46(0.48) 3.50(0.42)
SP2 3.68(0.35) 3.74(0.41) 3.62(0.29)
SP3 3.58(0.48) 3.64(0.61) 3.52(0.36)
SP4 3.64(0.47) 3.59(0.62) 3.68(0.33)
SP5 3.39(0.58) 3.61(0.60) 3.38(0.57)
SP6 3.30(0.51) 3.37(0.59) 3.23(0.44)
CP 3.53(0.28) 3.49(0.36) 3.55(0.21)
CP1 3.52(0.48) 3.51(0.61) 3.53(0.38)
CP2 3.49(0.50) 3.35(0.57) 3.60(0.44)
CP3 3.54(0.60) 3.48(0.67) 3.59(0.54)
CP4 3.56(0.53) 3.51(0.63) 3.60(0.44)
CP5 3.53(0.53) 3.48(0.59) 3.57(0.48)
CP6 3.49(0.54) 3.56(0.50) 3.43(0.58)
CP7 3.56(0.67) 3.55(0.67) 3.56(0.68)
TP 3.57(0.32) 3.63(0.34) 3.52(0.29)
TP1 3.72(0.54) 3.68(0.56) 3.76(0.53)
TP2 3.58(0.59) 3.69(0.51) 3.49(0.65)
TP3 3.49(0.68) 3.60(0.64) 3.39(0.70)
TP4 3.52(0.66) 3.60(0.62) 3.45(0.69)
TP5 3.55(0.50) 3.59(0.50) 3.51(0.51)
PERF 3.56(0.28) 3.58(0.28) 3.54(0.27)
PERF1 3.43(0.54) 3.52(0.53) 3.36(0.54)
PERF2 3.55(0.55) 3.57(0.56) 3.53(0.54)
PERF3 3.69(0.56) 3.64(0.61) 3.74(0.52)

Table 6
Blended learning and Non-blended learning student mean comparison.
Variance BL Mean score NBL Mean score Mean difference p-value Sig.

EN 3.69 3.68 0.01 0.947 n.s.

LM 3.60 3.62 −0.02 0.790 n.s.
SP 3.53 3.49 0.04 0.498 n.s.
CP 3.49 3.55 −0.06 0.408 n.s.
TP 3.63 3.52 0.11 0.144 n.s.
PERF 3.58 3.54 0.04 0.625 n.s.

multiple factors, including intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Intrinsic motivation was found to be the dominant motivation type in
students’ learning in the hybrid course (Lin, McKeachie, & Kim, 2003). It is thus vital for course designers to consider how learning
motivation can be enhanced throughout the different stages of the course, from the initial enrolment to the course setting facilitation.

5.3. Teaching presence, cognitive presence and social presence

Teaching presence is shown to have positive impacts on both the cognitive presence and social presence but not directly on
learning performance. Our results highlight that, even in the BL setting, students' perception of teaching quality is still a key factor in
determining students’ learning behaviour (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Shea et al., 2012). In the BL setting, teaching material is delivered
both online and offline, and students have more flexibility in choosing the time and space of study. The direct connection between
instructors and students in a BL course is relatively smaller than in traditional classroom teaching. Therefore, the interaction between
students and instructors becomes more critical and should be more useful for students to adapt to the self-directed learning approach

8
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

Fig. 3. PLS results for blended learning group.

Table 7
Structural path coefficients for blended learning group.
EN SP CP TP PERF

Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

EN 0.014*** 0.262*** 0.340*

LM 0.373*** 0.196** −0.015 0.140 0.103*** 0.043
SP −0.212***
CP 0.718
***
TP 0.581*** 0.547*** 0.289*

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.010, *p < 0.050.

Table 8
Hypotheses justification.
Hypothesis Result

H1: Learning motivation is positively related to student enrolment Support

H2: Learning motivation is positively related to COI.
H2a: Learning motivation is positively related to cognitive presence. Not supported
H2b: Learning motivation is positively related to teaching presence. Not supported
H2c: Learning motivation is positively related to social presence. Supported
H3: Enrolment is positively related to COI.
H3a: Enrolment is positively related to cognitive presence. Supported
H3b: Enrolment is positively related to teaching presence. Not Supported
H3c: Enrolment is positively related to social presence. Supported
H4: COI is positively related to learning performance.
H4a: Cognitive presence is positively related to learning performance. Supported
H4b: Teaching presence is positively related to learning performance. Not supported
H4c: Social presence is positively related to learning performance. Not Supported

gradually. Timely and supportive feedback on submitted coursework can let students know about their progress in learning when
peer-induced participation is lacking. Furthermore, a quality teaching presence offering clear directions can enhance the learning
efficacy of students (Law et al., 2010), and this directly affects both the social and cognitive presences.

5.4. Social presence, cognitive presence and learning performance

Cognitive presence is found to have positive effects on learning performance. Social presence is found to have weak adverse

9
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

effects on learning performance in the BL setting. These findings confirm that student social interactions and cognitive thinking are
significantly associated with students’ learning outcomes. Interactions and discussions between students are freestyled and less
directed in the BL setting compared to the traditional teaching environment. Therefore, the precise direction and effectiveness of
student interactions become less manipulated. On the one hand, students can interact in a more flexible manner that may enhance
their innovativeness, whereas on the other hand, unstructured discussion, mainly when unclear purposes and confusing may make
students project themselves socially and emotionally in the Community of Inquiry (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001).
Therefore, this kind of social presence does not positively affect learning performance.

6. Conclusions

This paper examined the role of student enrolment in the BL teaching environment. The student enrolment is found to have
positive effects on cognitive and social presence, and indirect positive impacts on student learning outcomes. The results reveal that
learning motivation enhances student enrolment and social presence. Teaching presence plays a vital role in facilitating student
cognitive thinking and social interactions among peers. The findings in this study provide important implications for educators to use
student enrolment as a critical measure for adjusting online and offline course design. Student interactions and group discussion
require clear instructor guidance to keep the student on track and make social activities effective in achieving learning targets.

7. Limitations

Though the sample size was not significant due to the restricted enrolment number for the BL classes, which was only offered to a
selected group of students of the same background for the better control of the experiment. We expect to extend the study to more
selected BL classes further. This study emphasises the roles of enrolment and learning motivation in BL setting. Although we per-
formed structural equation modelling for NBL data group, the findings are not included in order to make the focus of this paper clear
enough.

8. Contribution

Findings in this study reveal the impacts of student enrolment and learning motivation on learning performance in the blended
learning environment. The usage of computer and technology in BL setting is indispensable. The contributions of using computer and
technology in BL include connecting student for interactivity and collaboration (Bai et al., 2016) which is the key to the social
presence. Furthermore, in the BL setting, course designers can utilise the enrolment information to adjust the arrangement of student
learning activities such as discussions and group activities flexibly with the assistance of technology, while enrolment is directly
related to student social and cognitive presence. Though the usage of computer and technology is critical in BL setting, the teaching
presences in BL setting are still vital as teachers’ guidance can direct the students to learning goals and keep them on track.

Appendix

Section 1

List of items label Initial items

EN1 I am interested in the course content when I enrolled in this course.

EN2 I want to acquire the related knowledge from this course when I enrolled in this course.
EN3 I enrolled in this course because it is my compulsory subject.
EN4 I enrolled in this course because I have to fulfil my credit requirement.
LM1 I am motivated when I can complete the tasks distributed in the course successfully.
LM2 I am motivated when I can complete the tasks successfully.
LM3 I am interested in the course content, and it motivates me to learn from the course.
LM4 Improving my competence and knowledge in this course motivates me to learn.
LM5 The knowledge learnt from the course provides insights or long-term benefits to me, it motivates me to study in this course.
LM6 I am motivated by the course because I would have a strong relationship with my teacher.
LM7 I am motivated by the course because I would have a strong relationship with my classmates.
LM8 I am glad that I feel connected to the course.
SP1 The course provides the chances for me to express my opinions
SP2 The course offers the opportunity for me to interact with fellow students formally (e.g. face-to-face discussion).
SP3 The course offers the opportunity for me to interact with fellow students informally (e.g. online chat room or forum).
SP4 The course provides enough collaborative activities.
SP5 I enjoy participating in the course activities.
SP6 I have a sense of belonging to the course.
CP1 I can acquire knowledge from the course quickly.
CP2 I can identify the problems encountered during the course.
CP3 I can explore more information related to the course from other means of learning (e.g. videos, games, and discussion).
CP4 I can linkage the information learnt from the course.
CP5 The course provides the chance for me to reflect what I learned.
CP6 The course allows me to explore more ideas and integrate ideas into solutions.

10
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

CP7 The course equips me to have higher thinking skills.

TP1 The course provides a clear guideline on learning.
TP2 The course distributes moderate tasks for learning.
TP3 The course structure is innovative.
TP4 The tools or technologies used in the course facilitate learning and interaction.
TP5 I am satisfied with the information delivery channels.
PERF1 My problem skills are improved by taking this course.
PERF2 My critical thinking skills are improved by taking this course.
PERF3 My overall course grade in the last semester (Give a range, this is according to the GPA system of concerned
school.1 = 0–0.9,2 = 1.0–1.9,3 = 2.0–2.9,4 = 3.0–3.5,5 = 3.6 > .)
Section 2
1. Year of study:
2. Gender: M/F
3. Discipline: Engineering/Non-engineering

References

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social,
cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3), 3–22.
Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3),
231–246.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249–257.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Introduction: Project management education: Emerging tools, techniques, and topics. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(4),
568–569.
Bai, Y., Mo, D., Zhang, L., Boswell, M., & Rozelle, S. (2016). The impact of integrating ICT with teaching: Evidence from a randomised controlled trial in rural schools
in China. Computers & Education, 96, 1–14.
Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 524–534.
Black, G. (2002). A comparison of traditional, online and hybrid methods of course delivery. Journal of Business Administration Online, 1(1), 1–9.
Chen, C. C., & Jones, K. T. (2007). Blended learning vs traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA accounting course.
Journal of educators online, 4(1), n1.
Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention in gss: Relative importance of beliefs. ACM SIGMIS - Data Base, 26(2–3), 42–64.
Darling-Aduana, J., & Heinrich, C. J. (2018). The role of teacher capacity and instructional practice in the integration of educational technology for emergent bilingual
students. Computers & Education, 126, 417–432.
Eyal, L. (2012). Digital assessment literacy — the core role of the teacher in a digital environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 37–49.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Human motivation: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: Lisrel and pls applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4),
440–452.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 161–188.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1),
59–109.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Routedge.
Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2009). Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 19.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 2, 87–105.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.
Gunter, G. A. (2001). Making a difference: Using emerging technologies and teaching strategies to restructure an undergraduate technology course for pre-service
teachers. Educational Media International, 38(1), 13–20.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least square structural equation modelling. SAGE.
HallBandura, A. (1986). Social foundations for thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.
Harpaz, Y. (2005). Teaching and learning in a community of thinking. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20(2), 136–157.
Henseler, J., Sarstedt, & Marko (2013). Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modelling. Computational Statistics, 28(2), 565–580.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Audio-based versus text-based asynchronous online discussion: Two case studies. Instructional Science, 41, 365–380.
Hogarth, A. (2010). Education in a competitive and globalising world: Adopting blended learning for collaborative work in higher education (1st ed.). New York: Nova Science
Publishers.
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online university students' satisfaction and persistence: Examining the perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use
as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1654–1664.
Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89–106.
Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). Interrelationships between and among social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 68–73.
Law, K. M. Y., & Breznik, K. (2017). Impacts of innovativeness and attitude on entrepreneurial intention: Among engineering and non-engineering students.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 1–18.
Law, K. M. Y., & Geng, S. (2018). How innovativeness and handedness affect learning performance of engineering students? International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, (3), 1–18.
Law, K. M. Y., Lee, V. C. S., & Yu, Y. T. (2010). Learning motivation in e-learning facilitated computer programming courses. Computers & Education, 55(1), 218–228.
Lin, Y. G., McKeachie, W. J., & Kim, Y. C. (2003). College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 13(3),
251–258.
Lui, R. W., Geng, S., & Law, K. M. (2017). Project management SPOC with animation. Teaching, assessment, and learning for engineering (TALE), 2017 IEEE 6th
international conference on (pp. 29–34). IEEE.
Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we've been, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology
Review, 9(4), 371–409.
Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2014). Supporting professional learning in a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
15(5), 197–213.
Moos, D. C., & Marroquin, E. (2010). Multimedia, hypermedia, and hypertext: Motivation considered and reconsidered. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 265–276.

11
K.M.Y. Law, et al. Computers & Education 136 (2019) 1–12

Ngan, S. C., & Law, K. M. Y. (2015). Exploratory network analysis of learning motivation factors in e-learning facilitated computer programming courses. The Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher, 24(4), 705–717.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. American Educational Research Journal, 5(3), 83.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent Developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 39(5), 847–858.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(1), 83–98.
Reeves, J. R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3),
131–143.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. The Journal of Distance
Education, 14(2), 51–70.
Sanchez, G. (2013). PLS path modelling with R. Berkeley: Trowchez Editions.
Sanders, D. W., & Morrisonshetlar, A. I. (2001). Student attitudes toward web-enhanced instruction in an introductory biology course. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 33(3), 251–262.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Pickett, A., et al. (2012). Learning presence: Additional research on a new conceptual element within the
community of inquiry (CoI) framework. Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 89–95.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2),
306–331.
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3),
115–136.
Szeto, E. (2015). Community of Inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous
learning and teaching? Computers & Education, 81, 191–201.
Torrisi-Steele, G., & Drew, S. (2013). The literature landscape of blended learning in higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended practice.
International Journal for Academic Development, 18(4), 371–383.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 616–622.
Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 35(3), 193–202.
Yildirim, Z. (2005). Hypermedia as a cognitive tool: Student teachers' experiences in learning by doing. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 107–117.
Zimmergembeck, M. J., & Locke, E. M. (2007). The socialization of adolescent coping behaviours: Relationships with families and teachers. Journal of Adolescence,
30(1), 1–16.

12