You are here:

Hybrid Courses for Adults: Evaluating the Theoretical Background
PROCEEDINGS

, Nova Southeastern University, United States ; , Advisor, Nova Southeastern University, Brazil

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Atlanta, GA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-52-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper discusses a work in progress designed to develop a case study that will utilize a group of instruments designed to evaluate adult hybrid or blended-learning courses. A hybrid or blended-learning course is defined, for purposes of this study, as a course that reduces face-to-face time in the traditional classroom and replaces it with online components. These evaluative tools are being developed based upon theories of constructivism blended with situated cognition and the principles of experiential learning. The study also attempts to utilize existing evaluation instruments currently available for face-to-face and distance education courses while it pays special attention to instrument development, testing, and revision for the adult hybrid course. Verification is planned during the analysis phase of the evaluative case study underway of adult hybrid courses. These courses utilize a variety of interaction-rich opportunities both face-to-face and in the hybrid environment.

Citation

Dunkle, C. & Leite, PhD, L. (2004). Hybrid Courses for Adults: Evaluating the Theoretical Background. In R. Ferdig, C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2004--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 900-905). Atlanta, GA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 2, 2021 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Andres, Y. (2000). Students benefit from collaborative learning in the classroom. T.H.E. Journal, 28, 42-46.
  2. Angelo, T.A. (1993). Teacher’s dozen: Fourteen general, research-based principles for improving higher learning in our classrooms. Retrieved July 7, 2003 from http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwdls/kbh/Angelo.htm.
  3. Baumgartner, L.M. (2001). An update on transformational learning. In S. Merriam (Editor), The new update on adult learning theory, (pp. 15-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  4. Berg, G.A. (2001). Community college and four-year university agendas for distance learning. WebNet journal, 3, 5-7. Retrieved June 30, 2002, from http://www.aace.org/pubs/webnet/v3no4/3=4DistanceLearning.pdf
  5. Bullen, M. (1995). Andragogy and university distance education. Paper presented at the seventeenth conference of the International council for Distance Education. Birmingham, UK. Retrieved July 1, 2002, from http://www2.cstudies.ubc.ca/~bullen1.html.
  6. Bruner, J.S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  7. Burgon, H., & Williams, D. (2003). Bringing off-campus students on campus: An evaluation of a blended course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 253-260.
  8. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7.
  9. Facione, P.A., & Facione, N.C. (1994). Holistic critical thinking rubric. Retrieved June 15, 2003 from http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/rubric.pdf.
  10. Fenwick, T. (2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: A review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, 243-273.
  11. Fulford, C.P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7, 8-21.
  12. Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002, March). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching With Technology Today, 8. Retrieved May 3, 2003 from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/
  13. Graham, C.R. (2002). Factors for effective learning groups in face-to-face and virtual environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 307-320.
  14. Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned elearning interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 141-160.
  15. Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. London: Routledge.
  16. Honebein, P.C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments (pp.3-8). In B. Wilson
  17. Johnson, J. (2002, March). Reflections on teaching a large enrollment course using a hybrid format. Teaching With Technology Today, 8. Retrieved January 5, 2003 from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/.
  18. Jonassen, D.H. (2002). Engaging and supporting problem solving in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 1-13.
  19. Keegan, D. (1999). Foundations of distance education. London: Croom Helm.
  20. Kilgore, D.W. (2001). Critical and postmodern perspectives on adult learning. In S. Merriam (Editor), The new update on adult learning theory. (pp. 53-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  21. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  22. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
  23. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
  24. Reischmann, J. (2000). Why “Andragogy?” Retrieved August 12, 2002, from http://www.andragogy.net/
  25. Rose, A.D., & Leahy, M. (1997). Assessment themes and issues. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 75, 97-100.
  26. Sands. P. (2002). Inside outside, upside downside: Strategies for connecting online and face-to-face instruction in hybrid courses. Teaching With Technology Today, 8. Retrieved July 22, 2003 from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/sands2.htm.
  27. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2003). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education.2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  28. Soules, M. (2000). Hybrid web-based courses& Strategies for collaboration. Retrieved July 22, 2003 from http:///Www.mala.bc.ca/~soules/hybrid.htm
  29. Spilka, R. (2002). Approximately “real world” learning with the hybrid model. Teaching With Technology Today, 8. Retrieved August 2, 2003 from http://www.uophonline.com.
  30. Young, J. (2002). ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of higher education, 48. Retrieved July 2, 2003 from http://Chronicle.com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read