Presented by Luba Iskold, Ed.D. Muhlenberg College

advertisement
Presented by
Luba Iskold, Ed.D.
Muhlenberg College
 Review
 Hybrid
of the Literature
Teaching vs. Hybrid Learning
 Pedagogical
 Elluminate
 Benefits
Needs
vs. Skype
& Solutions?

A combination of online and face-to-face
instruction (Young, 2002)

Interchangeable with the term “blended”
learning

Synchronous & asynchronous delivery modes:
● Classroom ● Online ● Blended ●

Distance Learning: Videoconferencing technology

Online Learning: Computer-mediated (CM) technology

Combination of face-to-face instruction
with a group of students in a regular classroom
and synchronous interaction with one or more
students at a remote location

Possible Scenarios:

Student cross-registration among consortial
institutions

Student extended absence from campus due to
various circumstances

Study abroad in an English-speaking country

In the past decade, widespread availability of digital
learning technologies has led to increased integration
of computer-mediated interaction in traditional faceto-face learning experiences.

Institutions of higher education are embracing online
and blended learning (Bonk, 2004).

Although more research is needed, recent
publications provide dozens of models that combine
face-to-face instruction with online learning in formal
academic settings (Bonk & Graham, 2006).

Reactions include a wide range of opinions, from
excitement to disappointment (the Chronicle of
Higher Education, Zemsky & Massy, 2004).

Blended Learning Models (Graham, 2006):

Activity Level: using technology to enhance learning activities

Course Level: combination of face-to-face and CM activities used as
part of a course


Program Level:

(1) participants choose a mix between face-to-face and online courses

(2) combination between the two is prescribed by the program
Institutional Level: large-scale effort to enable students to take
advantage of both modes
How can we blend
face-to-face and CM instruction
effectively?
To answer this question, let’s consider
pedagogical needs
 Synchronous





Content Delivery:
Presentations/Demonstrations
Reviews & discussions
Video & audio
TB/WB
Printed handouts
 Tests
& Quizzes
 Experience & practice:



Role play
Peer discussion
Interactive Exercises

Library access (e-books, e-journals)

Blackboard (other CMS) access

Handouts & tutorial documents

PowerPoint presentations

Images and Internet links

Interactive generic & customized content

Asynchronous collaborative learning (e-mail,
discussion boards, chat facilities)

Student support (e-tutors, technical support)
 Instructional

Audio




Materials
Textbook CDs
Instructor & student recordings
Songs
Video





Textbook DVDs
Student-produced videos
YouTube clips
SCOLA segments
Dish TV clips
Menus & shortcut buttons
Enable/disable functions for
individual participants
Polling buttons
Chat box – type here
Switch whiteboard
“pages”
Whiteboard tools
Custom size/color/font
options appear below when
using certain tools
Turn microphone on/off and
control volume levels
Share a single
application,
or your entire
desktop
While sharing the desktop, the quality of video and audio files is poor. Better quality
can be achieved by emailing files or links to students, or by uploading them to
Blackboard.

Pros:

Geared toward teaching and learning

Many features integrated into a single program

Students and guest speakers do not need accounts

The software is installed automatically upon first use

Instructors moderate discussion

Sessions can be recorded and reviewed at a later date

Cons:

The college must pay for a license

Cluttered interface with too many buttons

Time is needed to become familiar with the software

Sessions must be scheduled in advance

Participants must be invited ahead of time

Invitations clutter email inboxes

The best audio quality is achieved by turning
microphones on/off each time someone speaks,
which is a distraction in a classroom setting

Calls with video & audio

Desktop sharing

Instant Messaging

File sharing

Integrated access to
Facebook newsfeed and
contacts (Windows only)

Pros:

Free

Easy to use, intuitive interface

Spontaneity: No need to send invitations or schedule
meetings in advance

No need to turn microphones on/off when speaking

Less disruptive to classroom instruction

Runs in multiple languages

Cons:

No integrated whiteboard; however, any drawing
program can be run while sharing your desktop

Every participant needs to create an account and
download the software
 Professional
 Training
 Dynamic
development for instructors
and technical support for learners
institutional infrastructure
 Acceptance
of blended approaches by
institutional culture
 Additional
time to prepare ALL instructional
materials in a digital format
 Seamless
integration of online learners with
students in a traditional classroom
 Switching
between three modes:

Face-to-face in a traditional classroom

Blended learning in a traditional classroom

Online learning from a remote location
 Impact
on student learning
 Faculty
workload
 Recognition
of the value of faculty work
 View
learning as a social experience
 View
technology as an aid to the social
dimension of learning
 Capitalize
 Make
on the learner-faculty relationship
the most of peer relationships
Luba Iskold
2400 Chew Street
Muhlenberg College,
Languages, Literatures and Cultures,
Allentown, PA 18104
Phone: 484-664-3516
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.muhlenberg.edu/main/academics/llc/faculty/
russian/iskold.html
22
Download