10.57647/jntell.2026.0502.06

An Investigation into the Potential and Pitfalls of Blended Learning among Iranian Higher Education Students Learning English as a Foreign Language

PDF
  • Mehdi Jowkar1,
  • Mohammad Javad Riasati*1,
  • Fatemeh Bahjat2,
  1. Department of English Language, Shi.C., Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
  2. Department of English Language, Aba.C., Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran

Received: 2025-12-05

Revised: 2025-12-20

Accepted: 2025-12-30

Published in Issue 2026-03-31

Published Online: 2026-02-05

Copyright (c) 2026 Mehdi Jowkar, Mohammad Javad Riasati, Fatemeh Bahjat (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Jowkar, M., Mohammad Javad Riasati, & Fatemeh Bahjat. (2026). An Investigation into the Potential and Pitfalls of Blended Learning among Iranian Higher Education Students Learning English as a Foreign Language. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 5(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/jntell.2026.0502.06
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 32

Abstract

Blended Learning (BL) has emerged as a transformative pedagogical approach that integrates computer-assisted instruction with traditional face-to-face (F2F) classes, offering a more engaging and flexible learning environment. This study investigates the overall tendency of Iranian EFL learners towards the BL process and evaluates its potential and pitfalls over a six-week intervention. Thirty students aged 18 to 25 from various academic disciplines participated in the study. Data were collected using the Web-Based Learning Environment Instrument (WEBLEI) and semi-structured interviews following the BL intervention. Results from descriptive analyses reveal a generally positive reception of BL: while 55% of participants expressed enjoyment of the learning approach, a significant proportion (31%) remained neutral, and a minority (14%) expressed dissatisfaction. Qualitative data highlighted an appreciation for flexibility and self-paced learning, juxtaposed with challenges such as technical issues, varying levels of self-discipline, and a strong preference for traditional teacher-led instruction among some students. The study concludes that while BL offers promising pedagogical enhancements for Iranian EFL contexts, its success is contingent on robust technological infrastructure, targeted teacher and student training, and a balanced instructional design that harmonizes digital and human interaction.

Keywords

  • Blended Learning,
  • Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL),,
  • Student Perceptions
PDF

References

  1. Albiladi, W. S., & Alshareef, K. K. (2019). Blended learning in English teaching and learning: A review of the current literature. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(2), 232. DOI:10.17507/jltr.1002.03.
  2. Alshwiah, A. A. S. (2009). The effects of a blended learning strategy in teaching vocabulary on premedical students' achievement, satisfaction and attitude toward English language (Published master thesis). Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain.
  3. Aslani, S. M., & Tabrizi, H. H. (2015). Teaching grammar to Iranian EFL learners through blended learning using multimedia softwares. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(8), 76-87. http://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/viewFile/188/pdf188
  4. Akbarov, A., Gonen, K., & Aydogan, H. (2018). Students’ attitudes toward blended learning in EFL context. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 11(1), 61-68. DOI: 10.24193/adn.11.1.5.
  5. Balcı, M. (2008). Student views on mixed learning (Master thesis, Hacettepe University, Institute of Sciences, Ankara, Turkey).
  6. Barriball, K., & While, A. (1994) Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: A discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), pp.328-335.
  7. Bock, A., Modabber, A., Kniha, K., Lemos, M., Rafai, N., & Holzle, F. (2018). Blended Learning Modules for Lectures on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.10.281.
  8. Calderon, O., Ginsberg, A. P., & Ciabocchi, L. (2012). Multidimensional assessment of pilot blended learning programs: Maximizing program effectiveness based on student and faculty feedback. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(3), 23-37.
  9. Chandra, V. (2004). The impact of a blended web-based learning environment on the perceptions, attitudes, and performance of boys and girls in junior science and senior physics. (Doctor of Science Education), Curtin University of Technology. http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R?func=dbin-jumpfull&local_base=gen01-era02&object_id=15943
  10. Chandra, V., & Briskey, J. (2012). ICT driven pedagogies and its impact on learning outcomes in high school mathematics. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(1), 73-83.
  11. Chandra, V., & Fisher, D. (2006). Assessing the effectiveness of a blended web-based learning environment in an Australian high school. In D. Fisher & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments worldviews (pp. 461-478). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
  12. Chandra, V., & Watters, J. (2012). Re-thinking physics teaching with web- based learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 631-640.
  13. Chang, V., & Fisher, D. (2003). The validation and application of a new learning environment instrument for online learning in higher education. In M. S. Khine & D. Fisher (Eds.), Technology-rich learning environments: A future perspective (pp.1-18). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
  14. Emelyanova, N., & Voronina, E. (2017). Introducing blended learning in the English language classroom: Students' attitudes and perceptions before and after the course. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 9(1), 33-49.
  15. Furberg, A. (2009). Socio-cultural aspects of prompting student reflection in web-based inquiry learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 397- 409. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00320.x
  16. Gandomkar, F., Ghanizadeh, A., Jahedizadeh, S., & Hosseinion, K. (2025). Implementing mobile portfolio application in EFL classes: Efficiency for fostering reflective thinking, directed motivational currents (DMCs), and cognitive learning. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 12(3), 75-100. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2024.21086.2439
  17. Geçer, A. (2013). Lecturer-student communication in blended learning environments. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13, 362–367.
  18. Ghanizadeh, A., Jahedizadeh, S., Afzali, M. & Hedeshi, E. (2025). The flip side of language learning: Student perceptions and achievement in Iranian EFL classrooms. Applied Linguistics Inquiry, 3(2), 37-54. https://doi.org/10.22077/ali.2025.9168.1125
  19. Kocaman, K. A., Kiraz, E., & Ozden, M. Y. (2014). Good practice principles in an undergraduate blended course design. Education and Science, 39(173), 249–263.
  20. Morris, N. P. (2010) Podcasts and mobile assessment enhance student learning experience and academic performance. Bioscience Education, 16, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.16.1
  21. Naderi, M., & Rahimi, M. (2023). Challenges in implementing blended learning in Iranian higher education: A case study. Educational Challenges in Iran, 6(1), 20-38
  22. Perez, M. V., Pere z-Lopez, M. C., & Rodriguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students' perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 818-826. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023
  23. Pina, S. (2012). From contact teaching to blended learning. Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, 2(2), 21-37.
  24. Pumjarean, W., Muangnakin, P., & Tuntinakhongul, A. (2017). The Development of blended e-learning using Moodle’s LMS for EFL Grammatical and writing instruction for first-year students in the English major. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 7(1), 81-89. http://jesoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/JESOC7_56.pdf
  25. Rahimi, M., & Kheirabadi, R. (2020). Innovative language teaching in Iran: Technology integration and student-centered approaches. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 123-140
  26. Rezaeyan, M., Amiryousefi, M., Gimeno-Sanz, A., & Tavakoli, M. (2025). Goal-oriented flipped learning model to improve L2 learners’ speaking, listening, and self-regulation skills: a mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2476549
  27. Skelton, D. E. (2007). An investigation into the learning environments of blended delivery (e-learning and classroom) in a tertiary environment. (Doctor of Science Education), Curtin University of Technology
  28. Smythe, M. (2012). Toward a framework for evaluating blended learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2012, Wellington, New Zealand.
  29. So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51, 318-336.
  30. Sun, D., & Looi, C. K. (2013). Designing a web-based science learning environment for model-based collaborative inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(1), 73-89. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9377-9.
  31. Tahmasbi, S., & RabaniEbrahimiPour, K. (2023). The effect of mobile-assisted flipped learning on Iranian EFL learners’ cohesive devices improvement in writing. International Journal of Research in English Education, 8(2), 82-95. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.25384015.2023.8.2.6.4
  32. Wong, A. F. L., Quek, C. L., Divaharan, S., Liu, W. C., Peer, J., & Williams, M. D. (2006). Singapore students' and teachers' perceptions of computer-supported project work classroom learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 449-479.
  33. Yapici, I. U., & Akbayin, H. (2012). The effect of blended learning model on high school students' biology achievement and on their attitudes towards the internet. The Turkish Blended learning in higher education Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 228-23