Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
In this chapter, we develop a programmatic research construct for blended learning based on an earlier framework proposed by Meyen et al. (J Special Educ Technol, 17(3):37–46, 2002). The use of this programmatic research construct will not only inform researchers of future possible research related to studying learner outcomes, but also expand the scope of blended learning research to other dimensions that are hitherto not yet investigated. This research construct consists of three categories of variables—independent variables, in situ variables, and dependent variables. Independent variables include variables such as the level or type of interaction, pedagogical approach, media attributes, and human computer interface design elements. In situ variables may be considered variables that are situated in the existing blended learning environment. They may include variables such as learner attributes, instructor attributes, learning environments, nature of content, and technology infrastructure. Dependent variables are the various outcomes that a researcher may measure in an experiment. They include variables such as learner outcomes, policy implications, and economic implications. In this final chapter, we will describe each of these variables and then propose several possible research questions to illustrate how the programmatic research construct for blended learning could be utilized in practice.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Azer, S. A. (2005). The qualities of a good teacher: How can they be acquired and sustained. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98, 67–69. CrossRef
Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198. CrossRef
Carey, J., Galletta, D., Kim, J., Te’eni, D., Wildemuth, B., & Zhang, P. (2004). The role of human–computer interaction in management information systems curicula: A call to action. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 357–379.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
Community Review (2012–2013). Review of technology and learning environments: Wilmette District 39. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://www.wilmette39.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=4076&Itemid=1098
Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. F. (1997). The motivation to think in working and learning. In E. Jones (Ed.), Preparing competent college graduates: Setting new and higher expectations for student learning (pp. 67–79). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431. CrossRef
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2011). Student facilitators’ habits of mind and their influences on higher-level knowledge construction occurrences in online discussions: A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(3), 275–285. CrossRef
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (Eds.). (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.
Meyen, E. L., Aust, R., Gauch, J. M., Hinton, H. S., Isaacson, R. E., Smith, S. J., et al. (2002). e-Learning: A programmatic research construct for the future. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(3), 37–46.
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19(3), 207–216. CrossRef
Omer, A. H. (2011). Nature of content—A deciding factor for training design. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://blog.commlabindia.com/elearning/nature-of-content
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American k-12 education: The research initiatives of the AlfredP. Sloan Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 127–135. CrossRef
Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT and our customers in higher education. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 155–168). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Staker, H., Chan, E., Clayton, M., Hernandez, A., Horn, M. B., & Mackey, K. (2011). The rise of K–12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. Innosight Institute report.
Wallace, L., & Young, J. (2010). Implementing blended learning: Policy implications for universities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(4). Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter134/wallace_young134.html
Zhang, P., Carey, J., Te’eni, D., & Tremeaine, M. (2005). Integrating human–computer Interaction development into the systems development life cycle: A methodology. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 512–543.
- Future Research Directions for Blended Learning Research: A Programmatic Construct
Khe Foon Hew
Wing Sum Cheung
- Springer Singapore
- Chapter 7
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com