Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
A recent study involving 113,035 students across 13 countries conducted by the EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research found that blended learning environments persists as the preferred learning modality even when students are beginning to experiment with fully online open enrollment courses such as massive open online courses (MOOCs) (Dahlstrom et al. in ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research, Louisville, 2013). This chapter begins by presenting the various definitions used by scholars to characterize blended learning, ranging from a very board definition that encompasses almost multiple learning methods or techniques, to one that narrows it down to the integration of online and face-to-face components. Specifically, in this book, we used the following definition of blended learning, adapted from Horn and Staker (The rise of K-12 blended learning, Innosight Institute, CA, 2011): “blended learning is any time a student learns at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home and at least in part through the Internet with some element of student control over time, place, and/or pace”. This chapter then discusses the reason why blended learning is increasingly being adopted by many educators by outlining its four main benefits: an ability to meet students’ educational needs, improving student-to-student communication, reducing the average overall per-student cost, and improving student learning outcomes as well as lowering attrition rates. More importantly, this chapter argues that the success of blended learning does not happen automatically, just because an online component is added to a face-to-face environment. Ultimately, the success or failure of blended learning hinges on a thoughtful connection between how the online and face-to-face components are integrated, the types of pedagogical approaches employed, and how all these elements are ‘blended’ together to attain the specific learning goals. This chapter ends by presenting a blended learning design framework that emerged from a recent study of seven experienced blended learning designers, along with a description of the various frameworks or taxonomies utilized in this book to classify the different types of pedagogies, cognitive processes of learning, and/or levels of affective learning.
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:
Allen, I. E., & Seaman J. (2010). Learning on demand. Online education in the United States, 2009. The Sloan Consortium: Babson Survey Research group. Retrieved on December 6, 2012, from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Battaglino, T. B., Haldeman, M. & Laurans, E. (2012). The costs of online learning. Washington DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-costs-of-online-learning.html
Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International,47(3), 177–198. CrossRef
Byrd, P. A. (2004). The revised taxonomy and prospective teachers. Theory into Practice,41(4), 244–248. CrossRef
Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2011). Design and evaluation of two blended learning approaches: Lessons learned. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,27(8), 1319–1337.
Churches, A. (2009). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Retrieved on July 24, 2014 from http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s+Digital+taxonomy+v3.01.pdf.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research,53(4), 445–459. CrossRef
Cucciare, M., Weingardt, K. R., & Villafranca, S. (2008). Using blended learning to implement evidence-based psychotherapies. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,15(4), 299–307.
Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J. D., & Dziuban, C. (2013). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2013. (Research report). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved on February 6, 2014, from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1302/ERS1302.pdf
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR) Research Bulletin, 7. Retrieved on December 6, 2012, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195–208). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Ellis, A. (2001). Student-centred collaborative learning via face-to-face and asynchronous online communication: What’s the difference? In Proceedings of the 18th ASCILITE conference (pp. 169–177). Melbourne, Australia: ASCILITE.
Foo, K. L. (2014). Exploratory study on blended learning. Unpublished master thesis. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
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). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
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.
Hadjerrouit, S. (2008). Towards a blended learning model for teaching and learning computer programming: A case study. Informatics in Education,7(2), 181–210.
Hanna, W. (2007). The new Bloom’s taxonomy: Implications for music education. Arts Education Policy Review,108(4), 7–16. CrossRef
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Mountain View, CA: Innosight Institute. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf
Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 1–23.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.
McCray, G. E. (2000). The hybrid course: Merging on-line instruction and the traditional classroom. Information Technology and Management,1(4), 307–327. CrossRef
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development: Washington, D.C.
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.
New York Times. (2013, February 19). The trouble with online college (editorial). p. A22.
Nobel, T. (2004). Integrating the revised bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record,106(1), 193–211. CrossRef
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon,19(3), 207–216. CrossRef
Oliver, D., Dobele, T., Greber, M., & Roberts, T. (2004). This course has a bloom rating of 3.9. In R. Lister & A. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth Australasian conference on computing education 2004 (pp. 227–231). Dunedin, New Zealand: Australian Computer Society.
Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT andour customers in higher education. In C.J. Bonk & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook ofblended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 155–168). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Rossett, A., & Frazee, R. V. (2006). Blended learning opportunities. White Paper, American Management Association. Retrieved October 27, 2006, from http://www.amanet.org/blended/insights.htm
Salmon, G. (2004). E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. Taylor & Francis Group.
Sharma, P. & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Macmillan Education Australia.
Smith, T. C. (2005). Fifty-one competencies for online instruction. The Journal of Educators Online, 2(2). Retrieved on February 4, 2014, from http://www.thejeo.com/Ted%20Smith%20Final.pdf
Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute, Inc.
Strambi, A., & Bouvet, E. (2003). Flexibility and interaction at a distance: A mixed-mode environment for language learning. Language Learning and Technology,7(3), 81–102.
Su, W. M., Osisek, P., & Starnes, B. (2004). Applying the revised bloom’s taxonomy to a medical-surgical nursing lesson. Nurse Educator,3, 116–120. CrossRef
Twigg, C.A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review, 38(5), 28, 30, 32–36, 38.
Ward, J., & LaBranche, G. (2003). Blended learning: The convergence of e-learning and meetings. Franchising World,35(4), 22–23.
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group report.
Wingard, R. G. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in web-enhanced courses: A multi-institutional study. Educause Quarterly,27(1), 26–35.
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2011). Online and hybrid course enrollment and performance in Washington State community and technical colleges. CCRC working paper no. 31. Community College Research Center Teachers College: Columbia University.
Young, J. R. (2002, March 22). ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28), A33−A34
Khe Foon Hew
Wing Sum Cheung
- Springer Singapore
- Chapter 1
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com