You are here:

Tools for Seamless Teaching in Online and Hybrid Contexts
PROCEEDING

, , Texas Woman's University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-37-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Face-to-face teaching methodologies are often very different from the pedagogies needed to deliver successful online teaching. Instructor presence, specific feedback, effective course design, engaging content, and peer interaction have all been shown to be effective predictors of success in online and hybrid learning contexts. This best-practices paper will introduce and discuss how publicly available online technology tools can be seamlessly integrated into online and hybrid course environments to facilitate effective learning. Specifically, this paper aligns with the online interactions framework which purports that students in online courses interact with content, with the course instructor, and with each other to obtain learning mastery. Online tools such as Nearpod, EdPuzzle, Voicethread, Screencastify, FlipGrid, and Google Suite can assist instructors in creating these interactions by facilitating engaging learning activities, providing a method to collect formative assessment data for learning feedback, and by promoting collaboration between students through meaningful discussion opportunities.

Citation

Hurlbut, A. & Dunlap, K. (2019). Tools for Seamless Teaching in Online and Hybrid Contexts. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 460-465). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 1, 2024 from .

© 2019 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2016). Online Report Card Tracking Online Education in the United States. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-report-card-tracking-online-education-united-states-2015
  2. Blackstock, D., Edel-Malizia, S., Bittner, K., & Smithwick, E. (2017). Investigating interactive video assessment tools for online and blended learning. In International Conference on e-Learning (pp. 31-39). Academic Conferences International Limited.
  3. Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S. & Hansen, N. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0 technologies: Education students’ perspectives. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 73-103.
  4. Chu, S.K. & Kennedy, D.M. (2011). Using online collaborative tools for groups to co-construct knowledge. Online Information Review, 35(4), 581-597.
  5. Coppola, N.W., Hiltz, S.R., & Rotter, N. (2001) Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and ALN. HICSS 2001 Proceedings, IEEE Press.
  6. Dong, Y., Kavun, N., Senteney, M. & Ott, J. (2018). Interactive presentation tools using mobile devices. In E. Langran& J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 743-748).
  7. George, D.R., Dreibelbis, T.D., & Aumiller, B. (2013). How we used two social media tools to enhance aspects of active learning. Medical Teacher, 35(12), 985-988.
  8. Green, T. & Green, J. (2018). Flipgrid: Adding voice and video to online discussions. TechTrends 62: 128. .
  9. Heirdsfield, A., Davis, J., Lennox, S., Walker, S., & Zhang, W. (2007). Online learning environments: What early childhood teacher education students say. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28(2), 115-126.
  10. Hurlbut, A. (2018). Online vs. Traditional learning in teacher education: A comparison of student progress. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(4), 248-266.
  11. Kucukalic, L. (2009). Mapping literature courses with google docs and “The Grid.” English Language Notes, 47(1), 115-124.
  12. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R.F., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.
  13. Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
  14. Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2008). Exploring two teacher education online learning designs: A classroom of one or many? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 475-495.
  15. Ravenna, G., Foster, C., & Bishop, C. (2012). Increasing student interaction online: A review of the literature in teacher education programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 177-203.
  16. Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M.A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to students in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 767.
  17. Spaeth, A.D. & Black, R.S. (2012). Google Docs as a form of collaborative learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(8), 1078-1079.
  18. Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J.C. Moore (Eds) Elements of Quality Online Education, Practice and Direction. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 13-35.
  19. Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E.E., Pickett, A.M., & Pelz, W.E. (2000). Course design factors influencing the success of online learning. In WebNet 2000 World Conference on the WWW and Internet Proceedings (pp. 513–518). Norfolk, VA:
  20. Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359–383.
  21. Twigg, C. (2000). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference. The Pew Learning and Technology Program, 2000. Http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/mono4.html
  22. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC.
  23. Vickers, J.C. & Shae, P. (2017). Future directions for social presence. In Whiteside, A.L., Dikkers, A.G., & Swan, K (Eds.). Social presence in online learning (pp. 191-206). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
  24. Ward, B. (2004). The best of both worlds: A hybrid statistics course. Journal of Statistics Education, 12:3, DOI:10.1080/10691898.2004.11910629.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides

Also Read

Related Collections