Student Attitudes Toward Blended Learning in Adult Literacy and Basic Skills College Programs | Attitudes des étudiants envers l’apprentissage mixte dans les programmes collégiaux de formation de base et alphabétisation pour adultes

Jia Li, Robin Kay, Louise Markovich


Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS) programs in many Ontario colleges offer adult learners who have low literacy and basic skills with opportunities to improve their employment skills as well as results on prerequisite courses for entrance into post-secondary education. LBS students encounter many challenges and require extra interpersonal instructional support, which may be overcome through a blended learning approach. Due to limited access to technology in LBS programs, little is known about adult learners’ attitudes toward online learning. This study investigates learners’ attitudes and perceived success in blended learning, and key factors contributing to individual differences. A survey was administered to 149 LBS student participants at three Ontario community colleges, along with interviews conducted with 37 students. The results of correlation and thematic analysis have shown that differences exist in their attitudes between face-to-face and online learning environments, 90% versus 40% positive respectively. Individual differences in their perceptions were found to be associated with their age, time out of formal education, education levels, and computer skills.

Les programmes de formation de base et alphabétisation (« FBA ») de nombreux collèges de l’Ontario offrent aux apprenants adultes dont la formation de base et la littératie sont faibles des occasions d’améliorer leur employabilité ainsi que leurs résultats aux cours prérequis pour l’admission aux études postsecondaires. Les étudiants en FBA font face à de nombreux défis et ont besoin de plus de soutien didactique interpersonnel, ce qui peut être surmonté par une approche d’apprentissage mixte. À cause de l’accès limité à la technologie dans les programmes de FBA, on en sait peu sur les attitudes des apprenants adultes quant à l’apprentissage en ligne. Cette étude se penche sur les attitudes des apprenants et sur la perception de la réussite en apprentissage mixte, ainsi que sur les principaux facteurs qui contribuent aux différences individuelles. Cent quarante-neuf étudiants en FBA de trois collèges communautaires en Ontario ont répondu à un sondage, et des entrevues ont été réalisées avec 37 étudiants. Les résultats de l’analyse de corrélation et de l’analyse thématique ont démontré qu’il existe des différences dans leurs attitudes relatives aux environnements d’apprentissage en personne et en ligne, qui sont positives respectivement à 90 % et 40 %. Nous avons relevé que les différences individuelles de perception étaient associées à l’âge, à la durée passée hors de l’éducation formelle, au niveau d’éducation et aux compétences informatiques.


Adult learners’ perception; College literacy programs; Online and blended learning environments; Face-to-face instruction; Individual differences

Full Text:



ABC Canada. (2002). Why aren't they calling? Non-participation in literacy and upgrading programs: a national study. Don Mills, Ontario: ABC CANADA Literacy Foundation. Retrieved from

ABC Canada. (2001). Who wants to learn? Patterns of participation in Canadian literacy and upgrading programs. Don Mills, Ontario: ABC CANADA Literacy Foundation. Retrieved from

Angulo-Ruiz, L., & Pergelova, A. (2013). The student retention puzzle revisited: the role of institutional image. Journal of Non-Profit and Sector Marketing, 25(4), 334-353. doi:10.1080/10495142.2013.830545

Ashby, J., Sadera, W.A., & McNary, S.W. (2011). Comparing student success between developmental math courses offered online, blended, and face-to-face. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(3), 128-140. Retrieved from

Ausburn, L.J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327-337. doi 10.1080/0952398042000314820

Bernold, L.E., Spurlin, J.E., & Anson, C.M. (2007). Understanding our students: A longitudinal-study of success and failure in engineering with implications for increased retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(3), 263-274. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00935.x

Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Pickard, P. (2003). Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 165-178. doi:10.1080/1358165032000153160

British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education. (2005). 2005 ABE survey: Report of findings from the BC college and institute adult basic education (ABE) outcomes survey. Victoria, British Columbia: Ministry of Advanced Education. Retrieved from

British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education (2013). 2013 Developmental student outcomes survey report of findings. Victoria, British Columbia: Ministry of Advanced Education. Retrieved from

Campbell, T., & Campbell, D. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38(6), 727-742. doi:10.1023/A:1024911904627

Canadian Literacy and Learning Network. (2015). All about Literacy in Canada. Retrieved from

Cicco, G. (2009). Online versus in-class courses: Learning-style assessment as an advisement tool. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(2), 161-173. Retrieved from

Colman, A. M., Norris, C.E., & Preston, C.C. (1997). Comparing rating scales of different lengths: Equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scales. Psychological Reports, 80, 355-362.

Conceicao, S., & Lehman, R. (2013). Persistence model for online student retention. In J. Herrington, A. Couros & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2013 (pp. 1913-1922). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from

Couzens, D., Poed, S., Kataoka, M., Brandon, A., Hartley, J., & Keen, D. (2015). Support for students with hidden disabilities in universities: A case study. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62(1), 24-41. doi:

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Falasca, M. (2011). Barriers to adult learning: Bridging the gap. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 51(3), 583-590. Retrieved from;dn=798380847429578;res=IELAPA

Fenouillet, F., & Kaplan, J. (2009). Impact of learning modalities on academic success. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, (2), 13. Retrieved from

Fisher, M., & Baird, D.E. (2005). Online learning design that fosters student support, self-regulation, and retention. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22(2), 88-107. doi:10.1108/10650740510587100

Greenberg, D., Morris, R., Fredrick, L. D., Rodrigo, V., & Hall, R. (2013). Persisters and nonpersisters: Identifying the characteristics of who stays and who leaves from adult literacy interventions. Reading and Writing 26(4), 495-514. DOI: 10.1007/s11145-012-9401-8.

Garrison, 1.R., & Kanuka, H. (2014). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education, Internet and Higher Education 7, 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001

Giguere, L. (2009). The impact of "virtualization" on independent study course completion rates: The British Columbia Open University experiment. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 49-70. Retrieved from

Gill, D. (2009). Effective blended learning techniques. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 6(2), 1-14. Retrieved from

Gonzalez, B.Y. (2014). Two-year community: a six-year review of student success in a biology course using lecture, blended, and hybrid methods. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(6), 14-19. Retrieved from:

Government of Canada. (2015). Literacy and essential skills. Retrieved from

Gülbahar, Y., & Madran, O.R. (2009). Communication and collaboration, satisfaction, equity, and autonomy in blended learning environments: A case from Turkey. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 10(2). Retrieved from

Hauser, H., Paul, P., Bradley, B., & Jeffrey, L. (2012). Computer self-efficacy, anxiety, and learning in online versus face-to-face medium. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11(1): 141-154. Retrieved from

Hayes, E. (1988). A typology of low-literate adults based on perceptions of deterrents to participation in adult basic education. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(1), 1-10. Retrieved from

Hoskins, B.J. (2012). Connections, engagement, and presence. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60(1), 51-53. doi:10.1080/07377363.2012.650573

Johns, R. (2010). Likert items and scales. Survey question bank: methods fact sheet 1. Retrieved from

Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge

Kuh, G., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., & Kinzie, J. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0019

Larson, D.K., & Sung, C. (2009). Comparing student performance: Online versus blended versus face-to-face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31-42. Retrieved from

Lewis, G. (2010). I would have had more success if: Student reflections on their performance in online and blended courses. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE), 3(11), 13-21. doi:

Lim, D.H., Morris, M.L., & Kupritz, V.W. (2007). Online vs. blended learning: differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27-42. Retrieved from

Malicky, G.V., & Norman, C.A. (1994). Participation patterns in adult literacy programs. Adult Basic Education, 3(3), 144-156. Retrieved from

Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. (2014). Literacy and basic skills service provider guidelines. Ontario: Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from

Moloney, J.F., Hickey, C.P., Bergin, A.L., Boccia, J., Polley, K., & Riley, J.E. (2007). Characteristics of successful local blended programs in the context of the Sloan-C pillars. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 29-47. Retrieved from

Muilenburg, L.Y., & Berge, Z.L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29-48. doi:10.1080/01587910500081269

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006a). National household education survey of 2005. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

Nikitenko, G. (2011). Analysis of adult students’ self-directed learning readiness, affective learning outcomes, prior e-learning experience, and age in hybrid and online courses. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 2503-2513). Retrieved from

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Ontario Ministry of Education (2017). LBS program. Retrieved from

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., & Brychan, T. (2004). E-learning and retention: Key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education & Training, 46(6), 335-342. doi:10.1108/00400910410555240.

Park, J., & Choi, H.J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners' decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217. Retrieved from

Porter, K.E., Cuban, S., & Comings, J.P. (2005). One day I will make it: A study of adult persistence in library literacy programs. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. Retrieved from

ProLiteracy America (2003). U.S. adult literacy programs making a difference. New York, NY: ProLiteracy Worldwide. Retrieved from

Pross, T., & Barry, S. (2004). Reaching across the barriers. Kingston, ON: Kingston Literacy. Retrieved from

Quigley, B.A. (1998). The first three weeks: A critical time for motivation. Focus on Basics: Connecting Research and Practice, 2(A). Retrieved from

Quigley, B.A., & Uhland, R.L. (2000). Retaining adult learners in the first three critical weeks: A quasi-experimental model for use in ABE programs. Adult Basic Education, 10(2), 55-68. Retrieved from

Reynolds, S., & Johnson, J. (2014). Pillars of support: A functional asset-based framework for ABE learners. Journal of Research & Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary & Basic Education, 3(3), 36-49. Retrieved from

Rovai, A.P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332. doi:1096751602001306

Rovai, A.P., & Jordan, H.P. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1-13. Retrieved from

Schofield, C., & Dismore, H. (2010). Predictors of retention and achievement of higher education students within a further education context. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(2), 207-221. doi 10.1080/03098771003695478

Senn, G.J. (2008). Comparison of face-to-face and hybrid delivery of a course that requires technology skills development. Journal of Information Technology Education, 7, 267-283. Retrieved from

Shelton, E.N. (2003). Faculty support and student retention. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(2), 68-76. doi:10.3928/0148-4834-20030201-07

Smith, C.M., & Smith, T.J. (2008). Low-education adults' participation in informal learning activities: Relationships with selected demographic characteristics. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 2(2), 67-73. Retrieved from

Sorden. S.D., & Munene, I.I. (2013). Constructs related to community college student satisfaction in blended learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 12, 251-270. Retrieved from

Statistics Canada. (2007). International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey (IALSS). Retrieved from

Tandy, C., & Meacham, M. (2009). Removing the barriers for students with disabilities: Accessible online and web-enhanced courses. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29(3), 313-328. doi:10.1080/08841230903022118

Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623. doi:10.2307/2959965

Vance, K. (2012). Do students want web 2.0? An investigation into student instructional preferences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(4) 481-493. doi:

Wetzel, J.N., O'Toole, D., & Peterson, S. (1999). Factors affecting student retention probabilities: A case study. Journal of Economics and Finance, 23(1), 45-55. doi:10.1007/BF02752686

Willging, P.A., & Johnson, S.D. (2004). Factors that influence students’ decision to drop out of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 8(4), 105–118. Retrieved from

Wyatt, L.G. (2011). Non-traditional student engagement: increasing adult student success and retention. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 10-20. 10-20. doi: 10.1080/07377363.2011.544977

Zacharakis, J., Steichen, M., Diaz, D.S., & Glass, D. (2011). Understanding the experiences of adult learners: Content analysis of focus group data. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 5(2), 84-95. Retrieved from


Copyright (c) 2018 Jia Li, Robin Kay, Louise Markovich

License URL: