Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Open access Journal SINTA 1

Blended learning model towards vocational students’ learning outcomes: A scoping review

International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) · Vol. 12 No. 1 (2023) · pp. 205–215

DOI
10.11591/ijere.v12i1.22986
ISSN
2620-5440, 2252-8822
Published
2023-03-01
Publisher
Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science
Language
eng
License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0

Abstract

The learning characteristic in the 21st century is the availability of information anywhere and anytime. Blended learning (BL) became the most widely used learning strategy in vocational education. However, the problem is the effectiveness of BL on student outcomes. This scoping review provides an overview of the implementation of the BL model on vocational students. The research questions in this review were: i) What type of BL was taken?; ii) How did the BL model works?; and iii) What was improved in student learning outcomes? The research method adopted the scoping review from Arksey & Markey. From the beginning, the research article data was taken from the Scopus database. The article selection using the PRISMA method obtained 32 articles from 4,298 articles. The results of the review showed that there were three types of BL models. The three types of BL were: i) The flipped classroom model; ii) The station-rotation model; and iii) The self-blend model. BL syntax that teachers most favored in nine ways, but mainly with the syntax: “Face-to-face (F2F) finished, after that online learning for enrichment”. Meanwhile, most of the articles improved learning outcomes in the cognitive domain.

Keywords

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 118 co-authorship links · 13 across different organisations · showing the 40 most connected

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Sebelas Maret University
  • National Research and Innovation Agency
  • State University of Semarang
  • Universiti Brunei Darussalam
  • National University of Malaysia
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Suranto SurantoSebelas Maret University3
Nunuk SuryaniSebelas Maret University3
Idam Ragil Widianto AtmojoSebelas Maret University2
Riezky Maya ProbosariSebelas Maret University2
Ashadi AshadiSebelas Maret University2
S. SutiknoState University of Semarang2
Sri WidoretnoSebelas Maret University2
Sri DwiastutiSebelas Maret University2
Dwi NantoAffiliation unknown2
Evi Ulina Margaretha SitumorangAffiliation unknown2
Ferry Budhi SusetyoAffiliation unknown2
Sigit Dwi YudantoAffiliation unknown2
Maman Kartaman AjiriyantoAffiliation unknown2
Daniel EdbertAffiliation unknown2
Cahaya RosyidanAffiliation unknown2
Afandi AfandiSebelas Maret University2
Roy ArdiansyahAffiliation unknown1
Dwi Yuniasih SaputriAffiliation unknown1
Roslinawati Mohd RoslanUniversiti Brunei Darussalam1
Lilia HalimNational University of Malaysia1
Dini Yuli SaputriSebelas Maret University1
R. EtvianaSebelas Maret University1
Bertha WikaraSebelas Maret University1
S. SutarnoSebelas Maret University1
Baskoro Adi PrayitnoSebelas Maret University1
P. ParminState University of Semarang1
Fidia FibrianaState University of Semarang1
Annisa Nur KhasanahSebelas Maret University1
Ade Cyntia PritasariSebelas Maret University1
Parmin ParminState University of Semarang1
Drajat Agus MurdowoNational Research and Innovation Agency1
Yohanes Adhi SatiyokoNational Research and Innovation Agency1
Kustri SumiyardanaNational Research and Innovation Agency1
Nontje Deisye WewengkangNational Research and Innovation Agency1
Sri YonoNational Research and Innovation Agency1
Basori BasoriNational Research and Innovation Agency1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) http://ijere.iaescore.com/index.php/IJERE/oai, first harvested 8 Nov 2026, last seen 8 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">Blended learning model towards vocational students’ learning outcomes: A scoping review</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Basori, Basori</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Sajidan, Sajidan</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Akhyar, Muhammad</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Wiranto, Wiranto</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en-US">Blended learning; Flipped classroom; Learning outcomes; Self-blend; Station-rotation</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">The learning characteristic in the 21st century is the availability of information anywhere and anytime. Blended learning (BL) became the most widely used learning strategy in vocational education. However, the problem is the effectiveness of BL on student outcomes. This scoping review provides an overview of the implementation of the BL model on vocational students. The research questions in this review were: i) What type of BL was taken?; ii) How did the BL model works?; and iii) What was improved in student learning outcomes? The research method adopted the scoping review from Arksey &amp;amp; Markey. From the beginning, the research article data was taken from the Scopus database. The article selection using the PRISMA method obtained 32 articles from 4,298 articles. The results of the review showed that there were three types of BL models. The three types of BL were: i) The flipped classroom model; ii) The station-rotation model; and iii) The self-blend model. BL syntax that teachers most favored in nine ways, but mainly with the syntax: “Face-to-face (F2F) finished, after that online learning for enrichment”. Meanwhile, most of the articles improved learning outcomes in the cognitive domain.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science</dc:publisher>
	<dc:contributor xml:lang="en-US"></dc:contributor>
	<dc:date>2023-03-01</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en-US"></dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://ijere.iaescore.com/index.php/IJERE/article/view/22986</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.11591/ijere.v12i1.22986</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE); Vol 12, No 1: March 2023; 205-215</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2620-5440</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2252-8822</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.11591/ijere.v12i1</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://ijere.iaescore.com/index.php/IJERE/article/view/22986/13516</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2022 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>