THE IMPACT OF BLENDED LEARNING ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Keywords:
Blended learning, Student engagement, Academic achievement, Higher education, Quantitative modeling, Digital divide, PhilippinesAbstract
This study investigates the structural relationships among blended learning design components, student engagement, and academic achievement in Philippine higher education institutions. Grounded in the Community of Inquiry framework and Self-Determination Theory, this inquiry models how online and face-to-face environmental quality predict academic performance through the mediating pathway of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Utilizing a predictive-correlational research design, empirical data were gathered from 400 university students across public state universities and private higher education institutions in Metro Manila. Structural regression analyses reveal that blended learning design, comprising online environment quality () and face-to-face environment quality (), explains 55.5% of the variance in multidimensional student engagement. In turn, engagement exerts a strong, direct effect on academic achievement (), partially mediating the effects of the physical and digital learning environments. Comparative analyses indicate significant disparities in student engagement and academic achievement across institutional types and internet reliability, highlighting a persistent digital divide. Specifically, students in private universities and those with high-reliability internet connections demonstrate significantly higher engagement and academic outcomes. Conversely, gender does not yield statistically significant variations. These findings underscore the need to enhance techno-pedagogical infrastructure and institutional support mechanisms to optimize student-centered hybrid environments. Ultimately, the study contributes to the conceptual expansion of instructional design models in resource-constrained contexts, offering actionable pathways for policymakers and university administrators to implement sustainable, equitable, and high-impact flexible learning systems.
References
1. Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 440–454. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.693
2. Al-Qahtani, A. A. Y., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and e-learning on students’ achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00490.x
3. Almaiah, M. A., Alamri, M. M., & Al-Rahmi, W. (2019). Applying the UTAUT model to explain the students’ acceptance of mobile learning system in higher education. IEEE Access, 7, 174673–174686. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2957206
4. Amoozegar, A., Abdelmagid, M., & Anjum, T. (2022). Course satisfaction and perceived learning among distance learners in Malaysian research universities: The impact of motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulated learning, and instructor immediacy behaviour. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2102417
5. Baloran, E. T., Hernan, J. T., & Taoy, J. S. (2021). Course satisfaction and student engagement in online learning amid COVID-19 pandemic: A structural equation model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1002721
6. Barrot, J. S., Llenares, I. I., & del Rosario, L. S. (2021). Students’ online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7321–7338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10589-x
7. Baticulon, R. E., Sy, J. J., Alberto, N. R. I., Baron, M. B. C., Mabulay, R. E. C., Rizada, L. G. T., Tiu, C. J. S., Clarion, C. A., & Reyes, J. C. B. (2021). Barriers to online learning in the time of COVID-19: A national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Medical Science Educator, 31(2), 615–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z
8. Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-flexible course design: Implementing student-directed hybrid classes. EdTech Books.
9. Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 126–150. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477 [verify page range]
10. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
11. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
12. Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001
13. Bokolo, A. J. (2021). Institutional factors for faculty members’ implementation of blended learning in higher education. Education + Training, 63(5), 701–719. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2020-0179
14. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Buntins, K., Kerres, M., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2020). Facilitating student engagement in higher education through educational technology: A narrative systematic review in the field of education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 315–368.
15. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
16. Bredow, C. A., Roehling, P. V., Knorp, A. J., & Sweet, A. M. (2021). To flip or not to flip? A meta-analysis of the efficacy of flipped learning in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 91(6), 878–918. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019122
17. Broadbent, J., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2018). Profiles in self-regulated learning and their correlates for online and blended learning students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(6), 1435–1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9595-9
18. Cao, W. (2023). A meta-analysis of effects of blended learning on performance, attitude, achievement, and engagement across different countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1212056. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1212056
19. Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2523–2546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3
20. Commission on Higher Education. (2020). Guidelines on the implementation of flexible learning (CHED Memorandum Order No. 4, Series of 2020). https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/CMO-No.-4-s.-2020-Guidelines-on-the-Implementation-of-Flexible-Learning.pdf
21. Commission on Higher Education. (2022). Updates on onsite learning in higher education (CHED Memorandum Order No. 16, Series of 2022). https://ched.gov.ph/issuances
22. Commission on Higher Education. (2023). Updated guidelines on onsite learning in higher education (CHED Memorandum Order No. 4, Series of 2023). https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/CMO-No.-4-s.-2023.pdf
23. De Bruijn-Smolders, M., & Prinsen, F. R. (2024). Effective student engagement with blended learning: A systematic review. Heliyon, 10(23), Article e39439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39439
24. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.
25. Diep, A. N., Zhu, C., Struyven, K., & Blieck, Y. (2017). Who or what contributes to student satisfaction in different blended learning modalities? British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12431
26. Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5
27. 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
28. 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(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
29. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
30. Gocotano, T. E., Jerodiaz, M. A. L., Banggay, J. C. P., Nasibog, H. B. R., & Go, M. B. (2021). Higher education students’ challenges on flexible online learning implementation in the rural areas: A Philippine case. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(7), 262–290. [DOI not verified — confirm on IJLTER article page]
31. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer.
32. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
33. Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., & Bélisle, M. (2021). An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3
34. Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., Bélisle, M., & St-Onge, C. (2020). Student engagement: A multidimensional measurement scale applied to blended course modalities at the university level. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 43, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.7202/1081043ar
35. Henrie, C. R., Bodily, R., Manwaring, K. C., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Exploring intensive longitudinal measures of student engagement in blended learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2015
36. Iglesias-Pradas, S., Hernández-García, Á., Chaparro-Peláez, J., & Prieto, J. L. (2021). Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, Article 106713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106713
37. Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283
38. Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001063
39. Li, L. (2022). Teaching presence predicts cognitive presence in blended learning during COVID-19: The chain mediating role of social presence and sense of community. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 950687. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.950687
40. Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022). A meta-analysis on the community of inquiry presences and learning outcomes in online and blended learning environments. Online Learning, 26(1), 325–359. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2604 [verify page range]
41. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500307
42. Müller, C., & Mildenberger, T. (2021). Facilitating flexible learning by replacing classroom time with an online learning environment: A systematic review of blended learning in higher education. Educational Research Review, 34, Article 100394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100394
43. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
44. Oliveira, G., Grenha Teixeira, J., Torres, A., & Morais, C. (2021). An exploratory study on the emergency remote education experience of higher education students and teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1357–1376. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13112
45. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
46. Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
47. Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011
48. Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23(3), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z
49. Rahiem, M. D. H. (2021). Remaining motivated despite the limitations: University students’ learning propensity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Children and Youth Services Review, 120, Article 105802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105802
50. Ramírez-Hurtado, J. M., Hernández-Díaz, A. G., López-Sánchez, A. D., & Pérez-León, V. E. (2021). Measuring online teaching service quality in higher education in the COVID-19 environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), Article 2403. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052403
51. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
52. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
53. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
54. Shi, F., Wu, Y., & He, R. (2025). Meta-analysis reveals the effectiveness evaluation of blended learning models across different academic disciplines. Forum for Education Studies, 3(2), Article 2501. https://doi.org/10.59400/fes2501
55. Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E. (2020). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review, 30, Article 100314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314
56. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
57. van Alten, D. C. D., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2019). Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, Article 100281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.003
58. Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.002
59. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
60. Xue, L., Rashid, A. M., & Ouyang, S. (2024). The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) in higher education: A systematic review. SAGE Open, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241229570
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal for the Advancement of Sustainable Development Goals
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
License Statement
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)
All articles published in the Journal for the Advancement of Sustainable Development Goals (JASDG) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Under this license, users are free to:
-
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format;
-
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use;
provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source, a link to the license is provided, and any changes made are indicated.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.
Authors retain copyright of their work while granting JASDG the right of first publication. The published work remains freely available to readers and may be used, distributed, reproduced, and adapted by others in accordance with the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.
For more information about this license, please visit:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 2026 The Author(s).
Articles published in the Journal for the Advancement of Sustainable Development Goals (JASDG) are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction, and adaptation in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are properly credited.
